PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Hansard Home Page: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-assembly/hansard E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (07) 3406 7314 Fax: (07) 3210 0182

Subject FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT Page Wednesday, 12 September 2012

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 1825 Appropriation Bills, Rule of Anticipation ...... 1825 PRIVILEGE ...... 1825 Speaker’s Ruling, Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by a Member; Speaker’s Ruling, Timeliness of Answers to Questions on Notice; Correction ...... 1825 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 6 August 2012, from the Leader of the Opposition, Ms Annastacia Palaszczuk MP, to Madam Speaker relating to a matter of privilege regarding the member for Burleigh, Mr Michael Hart MP...... 1826 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 29 June 2012, from the Manager of Opposition Business, Mr Curtis Pitt MP, to Madam Speaker relating to a matter of privilege regarding the Minister for Health, Hon. Lawrence Springborg... 1826 PETITIONS ...... 1826 TABLED PAPERS ...... 1826 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 1827 Education ...... 1827 Coal Industry ...... 1827 Schools, Maintenance ...... 1828 Fire and Rescue Service ...... 1828 Budget, Department of Energy and Water Supply ...... 1829 Budget, Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services ...... 1830 Budget, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection ...... 1830 AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ...... 1831 Report ...... 1831 Tabled paper: Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee: Report No. 8—Report on Subordinate Legislation SL 76, 77, 84, 85, 86, 87, 92, and 98 tabled 10.7.12 and SL 101, 105, 106 and 113 tabled 31.7.12. . 1831 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 1831 Queensland Economy ...... 1831 Department of Education, Training and Employment, Grants ...... 1832 Health Services ...... 1832 Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services, Grants ...... 1833 Budget, Mining Royalties ...... 1833 Budget, Jobs ...... 1834

FS SIMPSON N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Wednesday, 12 September 2012

Budget ...... 1835 Corrective Services Staff, Safety ...... 1835 Budget, Transport and Main Roads ...... 1836 Instrumental Music Programs ...... 1837 Budget, Agriculture Industry ...... 1837 Baal Gammon Mine ...... 1838 Budget, Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts ...... 1838 Budget, Redundancies ...... 1839 Tabled paper: Extract from transcript of Channel Seven News, 11 September 2012...... 1839 Tabled paper: Extract from transcript of Lateline, 11 September 2012...... 1839 Public Servants ...... 1840 Budget, Queensland Rail ...... 1840 Budget, Natural Resources and Mines ...... 1841 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 1842 School Group Tours ...... 1842 FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1842 Introduction ...... 1842 First Reading ...... 1843 Referral to the Health and Community Services Committee ...... 1843 WATER LEGISLATION (DAM SAFETY AND WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1843 Introduction ...... 1843 Tabled paper: Water Legislation (Dam Safety and Water Supply Enhancement) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012...... 1843 Tabled paper: Water Legislation (Dam Safety and Water Supply Enhancement) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, explanatory notes...... 1843 First Reading ...... 1845 Referral to the State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee ...... 1845 ANIMAL CARE AND PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1845 Second Reading ...... 1845 Tabled paper: Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee: Report No. 5—Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, government response...... 1845 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to...... 1852 Resolved in the negative...... 1852 Tabled paper: Article from cairns.com.au, dated 10 November 2011, titled ‘Calls for action on traditional turtle hunting after tourists witness slaughter on Green Island’...... 1871 Tabled paper: Article from Cairns Post, dated 11 December 2010, titled ‘Time to turn poacher into gamekeeper’...... 1872 Consideration in Detail ...... 1875 Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to...... 1875 Clause 3— ...... 1875 Tabled paper: Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, explanatory notes to the Hon. John McVeigh’s amendments moved in consideration in detail...... 1876 Clause 3, as amended, agreed to...... 1876 Clauses 4 to 9, as read, agreed to...... 1876 Clause 10— ...... 1876 Clause 10, as amended, agreed to...... 1876 Clauses 11 to 14, as read, agreed to...... 1876 Third Reading ...... 1877 Division: Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time...... 1877 Resolved in the affirmative...... 1877 Long Title ...... 1877 QUEENSLAND ART GALLERY AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1877 Second Reading ...... 1877 Tabled paper: Extract (pp 90 and 91) from Hansard of 17 May 2012...... 1879 Tabled paper: Article from the Courier-Mail, dated 30 May 2012, titled ‘Arts boss Shane Rowlands sacked one day after gaffe’...... 1880 Tabled paper: Document titled ‘LNP Cando Action: A public service to serve Queensland’...... 1881 Tabled paper: Email, dated 14 August 2012, from Digby McLeay to Hon. Ros Bates...... 1901 Tabled paper: Page 1 of article from Crikey, dated 1 June 2012, titled ‘The minister, the speech and the troubled department’...... 1901 Tabled paper: Screenshot of Legislative Assembly chamber, on 29 November 2011 at 19:40:34...... 1901 Tabled paper: Screenshot of Legislative Assembly chamber, on 29 November 2011 at 19:42:01...... 1901 Tabled paper: Page 2 of article from Crikey, dated 1 June 2012, titled ‘The minister, the speech and the troubled department’...... 1902 Consideration in Detail ...... 1902 Clauses 1 to 6, as read, agreed to...... 1902 Clause 7— ...... 1902 Tabled paper: Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill, explanatory notes to the Hon. Ros Bates’s amendment to be moved in consideration in detail...... 1902 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 12 September 2012

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to...... 1903 Clauses 8 to 12, as read, agreed to...... 1903 Third Reading ...... 1903 Long Title ...... 1903 ADJOURNMENT ...... 1903 Public Service, Jobs ...... 1903 McGuckin, Bishop R ...... 1904 Samford Rural Fire Brigade; Q3 District Lions Convention ...... 1904 Public Service, Jobs ...... 1905 Milosevic, Mr S ...... 1905 Ipswich Hospital, Nurses ...... 1905 Public Service, Jobs ...... 1906 Tabled paper: Definition of ‘pastiche’ from oxforddictionaries.com...... 1906 Lower Oxley Creek South Neighbourhood Plan ...... 1906 Suicide ...... 1907 Vietnam Veterans Day ...... 1908 ATTENDANCE ...... 1908 12 Sep 2012 Legislative Assembly 1825 WEDNESDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2012

Legislative Assembly The Legislative Assembly met at 2.00 pm. Madam Speaker (Hon. Fiona Simpson, Maroochydore) read prayers and took the chair.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Appropriation Bills, Rule of Anticipation Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members that standing order 231, which deals with the rule of anticipation, was amended on 28 October 2009 so as to ensure that the rule no longer applies in respect of the debate on the appropriation bills. Given that the Fiscal Repair Amendment Bill introduced yesterday is intrinsically linked to the budget and will be debated cognately with the appropriation bills, I intend to apply the exception in standing order 231 to that bill as well. Accordingly, members are at liberty to make statements or to ask questions that touch upon the appropriation bills and the Fiscal Repair Amendment Bill.

PRIVILEGE

Speaker’s Ruling, Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by a Member; Speaker’s Ruling, Timeliness of Answers to Questions on Notice; Correction Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have circulated in the chamber statements regarding three matters of privilege which I will seek to incorporate. The first matter relates to a letter from the Leader of the Opposition alleging that the member for Burleigh misled the House on debate on the Criminal Law (False Evidence Before Parliament) Amendment Bill 2012 on 2 August 2012. I will not be referring the matter to the Ethics Committee for the reasons outlined in my statement. The second matter relates to correspondence I have received from the Manager of Opposition Business regarding four questions on notice that had been tabled a day late. I will not be referring the matter to the Ethics Committee or taking any further action in respect of the matter for the reasons outlined in my statement. The last matter is correcting the content of a ruling I made yesterday. Is leave granted to incorporate the statements? Leave granted. Honourable members, I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition alleging that the Member for Burleigh misled the House on debate on the Criminal Code (False Evidence to Parliament) Amendment Bill 2012 on 2 August 2012. I table the correspondence. This Bill was effectively reversing the effect of a 2006 Bill. The Member for Burleigh during debate alleged that “five members” had voted for the 2006 Bill, including the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition’s complaint is essentially that the member was wrong, in that she was not a member at the time of the 2006 Bill being passed. However, I note that on 21 August 2012, the Member for Burleigh at page 1494 corrected the record and apologised. The Member explained that the confusion had arisen because the references in Hansard which he had read were the Leader of the Opposition and Leader of Opposition Business’ fathers, not the current members. There was obviously no intent to mislead the Assembly and the record was corrected early. I will not be referring the matter to the Ethics Committee. SPEAKER’S STATEMENT—LATENESS IN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Honourable members, In late June I received a letter from the Leader of Opposition Business regarding four questions on notice that had been tabled a day late. I table the correspondence I received. I have sought the advice of the Clerk and the officers of Chamber Services as regard the record in the Assembly of answering questions on notice. Analysis has been conducted of the timeliness of answering questions on notice since 2009. That analysis shows that the timeliness of answers to questions on notice has improved: In 2009, 89% of answers were answered within the required time limit and 11% were late; In 2010, 94% of answers were answered within the required time limit and 6% were late; In 2011, 96% of answers were answered within the required time limit and 4% were late; and In the period 2009 to 2011 while the majority of answers were one day overdue, there were cases when answers were more than five days late. 1826 Tabled Papers 12 Sep 2012

In 2012, in the 54th Parliament, to date 99% of answers due have been answered within the required time limit and 1% have been late, on each occasion by one day. Despite the clearly improving record of answering questions on notice, I feel it incumbent on me to remind the Assembly, in similar terms in which previous Speakers have reminded the Assembly (see Speaker Mickel 5 August 2009) that answers to Questions on Notice, both in terms of timeliness and content, are the personal responsibility of each minister. I stress that the 30 days within which Questions on Notice must be answered is not a flexible time limit, and that answering questions within the time limit is a clear responsibility on the minister. While the mechanics of such a process are often delegated, responsibility for ensuring compliance with the Standing Orders cannot be delegated. If there is a sound reason for the lateness of a reply, it is best to give an explanation, preferably beforehand. As to the remedy for when a minister fails to comply with the time limit, I note that each member is entitled to raise such a matter in the Assembly, including utilising Questions without Notice to elicit reasons for the lateness in reply. I intend to take no further action in respect of the Leader of the Opposition Business’ complaint. SPEAKER’S STATEMENT—CORRECTION OF THE RECORD Honourable members, Yesterday I made a ruling relating to two letters of complaint from the Member for Hervey Bay alleging that the Member for Bundamba “misled” the House in questions without notice that the member had asked of the Minister for Housing and Public Works regarding the sale of caravan parks. The description within my ruling was incorrect, in that the ruling related not to two letters of complaint from the Member for Hervey Bay about the Member for Bundamba, but one letter of complaint against the Member for Bundamba and one against the Leader of the Opposition. Both letters related to questions of the Minister about the sale of caravan parks and the ruling is otherwise correct. I also now table all of the associated correspondence. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 6 August 2012, from the Leader of the Opposition, Ms Annastacia Palaszczuk MP, to Madam Speaker relating to a matter of privilege regarding the member for Burleigh, Mr Michael Hart MP [1011]. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 29 June 2012, from the Manager of Opposition Business, Mr Curtis Pitt MP, to Madam Speaker relating to a matter of privilege regarding the Minister for Health, Hon. Lawrence Springborg [1012].

PETITIONS

The Clerk presented the following paper petitions, lodged by the honourable members indicated—

Fishing Industry, Carp Mr Kaye, from 334 petitioners, requesting the House to rescind all legislation which controls carp fishing in Queensland waterways and to allow non-invasive methods of fishing; and align the legislation with the legislation in New South Wales and Victoria [1013].

Redland City Council, Worthing Road Precinct Mr Dowling, from 53 petitioners, requesting the House to reconsider including the Worthing Road Precinct, located in Victoria Point, within the Urban Footprint of Redland City Council when reviewing the Redland Planning Scheme [1014].

Biddi Biddi Community Advancement Cooperative Ltd Mr Knuth, from 258 petitioners, requesting the House to investigate the management and administration of the Biddi Biddi Community Advancement Co-operative Limited, Atherton [1015].

Department of Housing Office, Wynnum Ms Miller, from 533 petitioners, requesting the House to immediately stop the planned closure of the Department of Housing office at 212 Bay Terrace, Wynnum [1016].

Public Housing Ms Palaszczuk, from 38 petitioners, requesting the House to guarantee that no tenants will be disadvantaged by the changes to public housing; rent rises will not place further pressure on families and individuals already struggling to pay bills; individuals and families living in the dwellings identified as under-occupied be allocated a suitable roof over their heads in the same community where they choose to live now; and that the changes will not result in the use of private-sector management of public housing [1017]. The Clerk presented the following paper and e-petition, lodged and sponsored by the honourable member indicated—

Instrumental Music Programs Ms Palaszczuk, a paper and an epetition, from 7,207 petitioners, requesting the House to compel the government to continue its support and fully fund “Fanfare” and “MOST” music projects to ensure Queensland children have the best opportunity to excel in music if they desire 1018. 1019. Petitions received.

TABLED PAPERS

MEMBER’S PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following member’s papers were tabled by the Clerk— Member for Albert (Mr Boothman)— 1020 Non-conforming petition regarding a biomass plant and waste burning chimney Member for Inala (Ms Palaszczuk)— 1021 Non-conforming petition regarding support and funding for MOST and Fanfare 12 Sep 2012 Ministerial Statements 1827

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Education Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (2.05 pm): The LNP government is promising a once-in-a-generation change for our schoolchildren. Under Labor we had a generation of Queensland schoolchildren who were short-changed. Education represents an investment in opportunity: giving our children opportunities and the tools to make the most of those opportunities. In return for that investment, our economy is stronger, our community is more prosperous, our industries are better skilled and our quality of life is enriched. Today’s education is tomorrow’s economy. No matter how well we build the four pillars of Queensland’s economy, all of them have a reliance on the foundation of education. Like a typical Labor government, the federal government has cynically used the Gonski report to try to make out it cares about education. As usual, Labor’s announcements are short on details, are unfunded—what a surprise that would be for a Labor policy!—and offer no hope for genuine reform for this generation. Our government will not succumb to the haphazard and short-sighted attitudes that have characterised the Labor agenda. We cannot, and we will not, commit to Labor’s vague and visionless federal plan. Yesterday’s budget is so important to Queensland because it means we can stop wasting $500 million on interest repayments by 2015-16 and start directing funds toward economic foundations such as education. We are concentrating on our vision for a world-class education system that gives our students opportunities from crayon through to career. Our government will ensure the best possible start for our children through our $54 million program to provide full-time prep teacher aides. Parents can be reassured that their children are receiving the best educational opportunities and outcomes. We want to ensure that teachers can have confidence in our education system and parents can have confidence in the quality of our teachers. Our government supports local decision making for schools, and we have cut red tape with our $3 million commitment to independent public schools and a further $2 million to the Schools Plan Commission. After years of Labor neglect, we are dedicating $200 million over the next two years to go a fair distance towards fixing the school maintenance backlog and giving our children safe, comfortable and attractive places to learn. We will provide pathways beyond the school gate by reviewing our training system and creating a much more industry responsive and prosperity-generating skills sector. A good example of this is our announcement of a $4.8 million partnership with the Queensland University of Technology for research into tropical pulses. This is an example of how education in science initiatives is able to provide economic benefits for both our state and industries and, importantly, future career opportunities for our children. What is more, we will give our children the tools for their future, and in return they will help our state thrive by contributing to our communities and to our state’s economy.

Coal Industry Hon. JW SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning) (2.09 pm): Yesterday I spoke in the House about the importance of the coal industry to Queensland and the support our government has for the coal industry. Today I want to inform the House just how the Newman government will work to ensure that the coal industry remains at the forefront of nationwide coal production. Firstly, for the first time in Queensland the industry can now have total certainty about the amount it will pay in royalties. But from next month, when those royalties are increased, the industry can be sure of one thing: that under an LNP government those royalties will not be changed for a decade. Miners can have a decade of certainty—10 years of knowing what they will pay, a decade in which they can plan and move forward with investments in Queensland. The royalties freeze announced by the Treasurer yesterday will provide them with certainty, confidence and security to invest. This government will do much more than that. The announcements that were made yesterday by the Treasurer were part of a package. It was a package that was about ensuring the people of Queensland got a fair share of the rewards from the resources that exist in Queensland but also that the industry can move forward as an essential part of the economy in the future. Royalties are only one part of the government imposed costs on miners. They are, in fact, a minimal cost, with some company annual reports indicating they make up less than 10 per cent of the cost structure that the industry carries. There is a host of regulation, red tape and green tape that has grown up over the years of Labor governments—layer upon layer of rules, regulations and requirements that miners have to meet to carry out their operations. A Labor government that fundamentally did not believe in the coal industry piled on these regulations for the last 14 years. 1828 Ministerial Statements 12 Sep 2012

This government will examine every last detail of that regulation and will see that it is serving a necessary and a worthwhile purpose before we decide to retain it. As announced by the Treasurer yesterday, we will be establishing a resources cabinet committee—and it will meet for the first time on Friday—because we are serious about this task. That cabinet committee will aggressively, ruthlessly and forensically review the mass of regulations that are imposed on our coal industry. We recognise that there are numerous measures that impose considerable yet often unnecessary costs on the mining companies. We know these costs can be significant and these regulations act as a disincentive when expansion or investment decisions are made. We will work with the industry to remove such disincentives wherever possible. The committee’s examination of these issues will provide a long overdue opportunity to address the regulations that miners believe hinder their efficiencies. This group of ministers will examine every regulation facing the coal industry and test them to ensure that the value they add is equal to the impost they put on the company. This is an opportunity for the industry to raise its concerns and to put its case as to why the changes should be made. What the Treasurer announced yesterday was a package that will ensure that for the next 10 years the people of Queensland will receive fair value from our resources and the mining industry and the coal industry in particular can continue to play the important role that it does in the Queensland economy. Schools, Maintenance Hon. JH LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Minister for Education, Training and Employment) (2.12 pm): When I was briefed on my portfolio after the election there was nothing more disappointing than the sad maintenance backlog left in our schools by those opposite. While they wasted billions on political whims and white elephants, our schools were left to wither and crumble under $292 million of unfunded maintenance. The Premier and the Treasurer were just as appalled. The Commission of Audit noted it in its interim report. In yesterday’s budget we went a long way to fixing that with an injection of $200 million into the schools maintenance budget. Better yet, the local school community will be the one to determine, in conjunction with the principal, what works are prioritised and how they will be sourced. No longer do schools have to use only QBuild. They can use private providers and they can use any savings to reinvest in the school. So honourable members can imagine my surprise when I heard this reaction from Kevin Bates of the Queensland Teachers Union. He stated— In local communities, the people who make up the P and Cs will be the local business people who may very well stand to benefit on maintenance in schools ... That’s a reality, that’s not an accusation. It sounds very much like an accusation to me. Here we have the QTU president showing his hand. We on this side of the House are happy for school communities to make decisions for their school. Kevin Bates says that parents and volunteers cannot be trusted. It is reprehensible for the QTU to imply that P&Cs would seek to use funds for purposes other than in their schools. It is reprehensible to smear P&Cs with dissent, fraud or impropriety. I know who I would trust to make decisions about local schools; I would trust the P&C president and the principal over an out-of-touch union that is more interested in its own prosperity than in improving state schools. Opposition members interjected. Mr LANGBROEK: This is a choice that those opposite need to make. Does the Leader of the Opposition support Kevin Bates’s accusation that the P&C at Durack State School will use money for their personal benefit or does she support her local P&C? What about the member for South Brisbane? Does she support the P&C at West End State School or does she support Kevin Bates? If those opposite do not come out and say they support their P&Cs and condemn the QTU’s accusations, the P&Cs in their electorate will have the answer. Fire and Rescue Service Hon. JM DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—LNP) (Minister for Police and Community Safety) (2.15 pm): As all members of this House know, we are heading into one of our most challenging bushfire seasons. Today I want to assure Queenslanders that the state is ready to meet that challenge. Let me assure the House that the necessary reforms of rural fire operations will not reduce this state’s readiness for the bushfire season. The changes are timed to take effect after the current fire season, resulting in a streamlined process whilst a review of the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service is conducted. Tough decisions have had to be made by this government to bring Queensland back from debt and decline. That means that we have looked at structures across-the-board in an effort to identify how we can do things better and more efficiently. Our rural firefighters have told us that they are tied up in red tape and bureaucracy, which makes it difficult to carry out their roles efficiently. We have sought to re- empower our local volunteers and brigades by removing a layer of bureaucracy between the volunteers 12 Sep 2012 Ministerial Statements 1829 and head office. People with intimate knowledge of the area in which they live have told this government that they are tired of being overruled by bureaucrats from Brisbane. Rural fire volunteers know their areas and are the ones who are able to make the most appropriate decisions when it comes to fighting fires in their local community. The new regional structure will change from the current seven regions to three zones: northern, central and southern. It will see the loss of 56 support and administrative positions out of a total of 117. But let me stress that the new structure will continue to provide training and operational and administrative support to our 35,000 rural fire volunteers. Rural fire is not immune from the changes and efficiencies that have reached into all areas of government. I can assure honourable members that we will work through these changes with the rural fire leadership to ensure that we provide an effective and flexible volunteer service. I know these changes are challenging, but they will not impact on our capacity to protect all Queenslanders. In fact, these efficiencies enable $45.6 million to be directed to fire and rescue facilities and urban and rural appliances throughout the whole of the state. This will include new and replacement fire stations for a number of suburbs, 21 new urban fire appliances and 24 new rural fire appliances. This shows that we continue to support the important work that Queensland urban, auxiliary and rural firefighters perform by equipping them with the trucks and equipment they need to continue to protect Queensland communities across this fine state. Let me stress my support for the hardworking members of the Rural Fire Service. The work they perform is invaluable. This government will reduce the bureaucracy and red tape and will empower local brigades. We will work closely with them to ensure that they are able to carry out their duties to the highest possible standard.

Budget, Department of Energy and Water Supply

Hon. MF McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (Minister for Energy and Water Supply) (2.18 pm): Yesterday the Newman government put the cost of living front and centre on the state’s agenda, and no more so than in the critical areas of electricity and water. After more than five years of mostly double digit increases in power and water costs, yesterday’s budget provided the first relief for families from the never-ending upward price spiral. On coming to power after the election the Newman government moved immediately to apply a price freeze to domestic tariff 11. This was formally delivered yesterday in the budget with $63 million having been put aside to make this happen. This tariff 11 freeze clearly marks the direction this government plans to take with electricity. Remember that since 2007 Queenslanders have suffered an 83 per cent price hike in household power bills. Yesterday’s budget also laid the foundations for the Department of Energy and Water Supply, which will set an agenda to reform public utilities focused on reducing the cost of living.

For the first time, Queenslanders will have a 30-year energy plan outlining the direction we need to take to keep the cost of living down. A 30-year energy plan is important because that is the investment horizon for getting a return from major energy assets like electricity generators. A 30-year energy plan gives transparency and provides a clear focus for the future of the entire rapidly transforming energy sector so it can manage change and invest in Queensland with confidence. Long- term plans for energy and water will provide a strategic direction to manage the cost of living for today, tomorrow and 10 and 20 years from now.

In this budget the LNP delivered on our election promise: South-East Queensland households will directly benefit from an $80 rebate on their water bills this financial year, providing welcome relief from year-on-year increases. Some $92 million was announced in the budget to make this happen.

Yesterday’s budget formalises the merger of key water entities in South-East Queensland to reduce duplication and cost drivers of water into the future. The budget further formalises the end of the Queensland Water Commission and the transfer of its functions back to government. This will also help ensure there is no duplication and that water policy decisions are delivered in the most efficient way.

As with energy, my department has been charged with developing a 30-year water plan which will end the knee-jerk planning that has dominated recent years. South-East Queensland is awash with water assets, and this budget provides the beginnings of the future management of these assets to reduce the longer term cost-of-living impacts for families.

People living outside our state’s south-east are also beneficiaries, with $640 million being earmarked in the budget to underwrite uniform tariff policy. Paid as a community service obligation, this sum will ensure regional Queenslanders pay the same for electricity as those in Brisbane, regardless of the distance and the amount of infrastructure required to get power to regional corners of the state. Yesterday’s energy and water budget was for all Queenslanders. It is time to get on with the hard work of getting Queensland moving again. 1830 Ministerial Statements 12 Sep 2012

Budget, Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services Hon. TE DAVIS (Aspley—LNP) (Minister for Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services) (2.21 pm): Yesterday the Newman government delivered the most important budget in a generation that will put Queensland back on the path to prosperity. This budget delivers exciting news and new initiatives in Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services. The Newman government is committed to improving the lives of people with a disability, their families and their carers, and we are delivering a record $959 million in specialist disability services this year—up from $931 million in 2011-12. This includes $6.5 million to fund extra respite for people with high-needs disabilities aged 16 to 25 years and to establish Parent Connect to provide assistance to parents of babies and children with a newly diagnosed or acquired disability. We are also providing $10.7 million to continue upgrades and construct purpose-built accommodation for people with an intellectual disability and severely challenging behaviours, and $7.9 million for supported accommodation to provide specialist housing for people living with a disability. Some $14.1 million has been allocated for the construction and modifications of centre based day care for people with a disability and also to support other community care services. Yesterday we were proud to announce that we are establishing the Elderly Parent Carer Innovation Trial. Every parent wants to know that their child’s future is safe and secure. This is especially true for older parents caring for an adult child with a disability who want some certainty and security about the ongoing care of their adult child when they are no longer able to care for them. The Elderly Parent Carer Innovation Trial will invest $15 million over three years to provide flexible grants for new community living spaces, mixed disability and aged-care facilities and home modifications. The fund will also encourage partnerships and contributions from families, trusts and philanthropic organisations. This government is committed to protecting Queensland children and, as my colleagues would know, our commission of inquiry into the child protection system is well underway to chart a new road map for our child protection system for the next 10 years and beyond. Families are the cornerstone of our communities, and our $4 million Fostering Families intervention initiative, which will launch by the end of the year, will provide practical support to help keep children at home and out of state care. We are also providing $1 million in capital funding this financial year to deliver a new child safe house on Thursday Island which will provide support and protection to Indigenous children in the child protection system. We are delivering for children from regional and remote areas, with $500,000 to provide a telephone support line providing around-the-clock counselling. A further $1 million will also help increase counselling services for victims of child abuse and sexual assault. There are many community and volunteer groups across the state providing services, and under our Caring for our Community small grants program they will be able to apply for grants to purchase small equipment like computers or to undertake kitchen upgrades. We know that these grants will be a welcome support to these many organisations. The Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services is providing $1.756 billion in grants and subsidies this financial year to support a wide range of services across Queensland communities so that we can look after those Queenslanders who need a helping hand. Budget, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Hon. AC POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection) (2.25 pm): This budget is a turning point for Queensland. It sets a course that will navigate the state away from a future of debt and deficit and back to prosperity. It is a U-turn from the path that was set by a wasteful Labor government—a government that put green political preferences ahead of true environmental outcomes, a government that was happy to borrow and spend while increasing green tape and strangling economic growth. Whether it was travel, consultancies or contractors’ fees, the former department of environment and resource management was feeding the debt and deficit of the previous Bligh Labor government. In breaking up the department of environment and resource management and establishing a new environmental regulator—the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection—this government has not only improved accountability of environmental standards but also ensured we as a government are more accountable on the ways in which taxpayers’ money is spent. By cutting duplication of programs with the federal government, by cutting unnecessary green tape and by cutting the level of government debt we can deliver sustainable economic development and real environmental outcomes for all Queenslanders. In Environment and Heritage Protection we have found savings of around $20 million— $20 million that ensures we can continue to acquire more protected area estate for this wonderful state of Queensland, $20 million that ensures we can deliver our $12 million Everyone’s Environment grants 12 Sep 2012 Questions Without Notice 1831 program, $20 million that ensures we can invest in coal seam gas regulation and in wildlife management across this great state. We are refocusing the department’s core purpose to be a strong environmental regulator facilitating appropriate, sustainable development while also being a protector of Queensland’s heritage. This shift away from the doom of old includes a commitment that environmental regulation will be an enabler of, and not a roadblock to, sustainable development. Refocusing priorities and aligning expenditure to priority areas means we can better protect our environment for the future. Where companies are doing the right thing, my department will not be a roadblock to economic recovery and growth, but we need to allocate resources to ensure growth happens in a measured way that is respectful of landholders and the environment. We need to fix the state’s foundations now to ensure the next generations of Queenslanders are given the opportunity to enjoy the spectacular natural environment we appreciate today. This budget shows that we can be fiscally prudent, pro environment and pro business and that these elements are not mutually exclusive. The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection as a strong environmental regulator will ensure that a healthy environment is an essential part of a robust Queensland economy.

AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

Report Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (2.28 pm): I table the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee’s report No. 8, titled Report on subordinate legislation SL 76, 77, 84, 85, 86, 87, 92 and 98, tabled 10.7.12 and SL 101, 105, 106 and 113 tabled 31.7.12. Tabled paper: Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee: Report No. 8—Report on Subordinate Legislation SL 76, 77, 84, 85, 86, 87, 92, and 98 tabled 10.7.12 and SL 101, 105, 106 and 113 tabled 31.7.12 [1022].

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Queensland Economy Ms PALASZCZUK (2.30 pm): My question is to the Premier. With massive 14,000 job cuts, the predicted rise in unemployment to six per cent and revelations that BHP is now threatening to withdraw investment in Queensland, I ask the Premier: what message does this send to the community about confidence in the Queensland economy? Mr NEWMAN: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question and I point to the commentary from people whose opinion I would respect in many of the leading journals of this nation: the Australian’s editorial, the Australian Financial Review and Mr Michael Knox, the chief economist of ABN AMRO Morgans. There are all sorts of commentators who have in the last 24 hours acknowledged that this government has made the right decisions. Sadly, because of the mess that we have been left by those opposite, they are tough decisions. But they are the right decisions to get the state back on track. Queensland has a bright economic future. But to ensure that bright economic future, the first thing we had to do was to sort out the state of our state’s finances. That is something that we have done. Today, we saw many people rally outside the parliament. Sadly, those people, in many cases, have lost their jobs. I feel for those people. I am sorry for those people. My ministers and, indeed, I know all parliamentarians here are sorry for those people and their families. But there is a certain irony in those opposite going out there to be part of the crowd or indeed even to speak when they are the ones—the Labor Party, the guilty party—who did it to those people, who made it happen, who inflicted that pain and misery on those people. I assure those who rallied today that the Queensland that we see in the future is a Queensland where there are plenty of jobs. We are committed to the four per cent unemployment target in 5½ years time. We are committed to achieve that. We are doing everything we can to rev up the tourism, construction, agriculture and indeed mining industries. It is great, for example, to see today an announcement by Qantas dated 12 September of more flights into Gladstone—a new direct service from Sydney to Gladstone starting on 4 March next year, 60,000 extra seats coming into Queensland each year. This is on top of China Eastern, China Southern, Etihad airlines, Qantas into the Gold Coast, Scoot airlines—a whole lot of extra capacity coming into this state. There are some green shoots of economic recovery that we are seeing right now. This government, through its actions, is determined to get on with the $20 million for tourism in promoting this state. There is also the first home owners construction grant—$15,000 targeted dollars to get tradies back to work, give a young couple their first home and a real leg-up through paying no tax in terms of that transaction. These are things that will get the economy going. Queensland has a bright economic future. It has an economy that is about to really get going and we will do everything to make sure that that recovery is a reality. 1832 Questions Without Notice 12 Sep 2012

Department of Education, Training and Employment, Grants Ms PALASZCZUK: My next question is to the Premier. I refer to the LNP’s decision to savagely cut education department grants totalling $4.2 million to 43 community organisations, including the Pyjama Foundation, helping foster-children, the respected Triple P parenting program and even the peak body for school tuckshop volunteers. I ask: will the Premier advise how many jobs will be cut from the organisations losing funding? Will he advise how the groups losing government support were chosen? Mr NEWMAN: In relation to how such decisions were made, I suggest respectfully that the Leader of the Opposition put that one to the education minister—unlike certain Labor leaders such as Kevin Rudd, ‘Dr Death’, who ran a dictatorship in Canberra when he was the Prime Minister. And do not believe me, by the way; there are some great quotes about the leadership style of the great but overrated Kevin Rudd. So ask the education minister about how those decisions were made. But I will take one particular example. This is the difference between us and the Labor Party. We have a fund—$200 million over the next two years—to deal with the maintenance backlog that these people to the front of me left our state schools; $200 million in maintenance backlog— Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! There are interjections across the chamber that are not being taken by the speaker. Please show courtesy to the member with the call. Mr NEWMAN: Madam Speaker, thank you for your protection. There is $200 million to deal with the maintenance backlog that these people have bequeathed to us but, more importantly, to the schools, the kids, the teachers. Today I was out at Mitchelton State School with the honourable Minister for Education and I showed the media, in front of all the kids—the school leaders—the peeling paint, huge slabs of paint. How many years has it been since they gave the Mitchelton State School a bit of love and attention? This program will see grants of up to $160,000 being available to P&Cs across the state to deal with those sorts of issues. Take tuckshops. I would prefer to put the money into fixing tuckshops, to bringing them up to modern food safety standards with hygienic stainless steel appliances and benchtops, than funding an organisation. So I believe on that one that the minister has it right. I totally believe that he has it right. I would prefer to see that funding going there. But what about the money for independent and Catholic schools and the state school system? What about the commitments to new high schools and state schools in the building program? What about the full-time teacher aides? This government is supporting education in a meaningful, practical way. What have the Labor Party and the unions said? They said that we were going to sack school cleaners. Zzzz. Fail. Wrong. They said we were going to change class sizes. Zzzz. Fail. Wrong. You cannot trust anything that the Australian Labor Party or the Queensland Teachers Union say when it comes to education. They are the people who ran the schools into the ground—a $200 million backlog in maintenance. What sort of commitment to education is that? Meanwhile, they ran around putting solar panels on the roofs but forgot to paint the buildings, clean out the dunnies, clear the drains and make sure that the kids had a safe playground to play in. Health Services Mr JOHNSON: My question without notice is to the honourable the Premier. Can the Premier outline what the government is doing to ensure that all Queenslanders have better access to health care and to ensure that the most vulnerable in society receive more support? Mr NEWMAN: I thank the member for Gregory for his question. Queenslanders do not judge our health system by its size but by health services delivered effectively, efficiently, with care and on time. Our vision is to transform Queensland Health into a more patient focused organisation underpinned by strong front-line service delivery. We are committed to revitalising health services in Queensland. We have announced an extra $816 million a year to be invested this year in Queensland Health—a seven per cent increase. We are providing new funding for increased medical, nursing and allied health staff on weekends to ensure that patients can be treated and discharged without unnecessary delays. We will be reducing the waiting list by partnering with private providers to help treat long-wait patients to reduce pressure on elective surgery. We are increasing the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme—I know the member for Gregory is particularly happy with this one—from 1 January 2013 by doubling the accommodation and mileage subsidy. This is the first time since 1987 that the accommodation subsidy has been increased. This much needed boost will ease the financial burden and stress of travelling to access services for rural and regional Queenslanders. I note that Cancer Council Queensland has applauded this announcement. It has stated publicly— This important Budget measure will save lives by providing regional Queenslanders with better access to life-saving health services ... regional people will no longer have to agonise over whether they can afford to undergo cancer treatment. Queensland will now have the most generous Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme in Australia. 12 Sep 2012 Questions Without Notice 1833

In addition to providing better access to health services, we have also recently announced changes to disability services in Queensland. A record $959 million will be invested in specialist disability services this financial year. We will be assisting elderly parent carers of disabled children as they reach a point in time when they can no longer care for their children. We are doing this through a $15 million trial to assist elderly parent carers of disabled children in making arrangements for their children’s future care. The government will also commence a trial of self-directed funding for people living with a disability. This will be a revolution in the way disability services are provided in Queensland. It will ensure people with disabilities have much more choice and greater control over the support they receive. Ms Palaszczuk interjected. Mr NEWMAN: I hear the Leader of the Opposition objecting. We all know that the Leader of the Opposition had a chance to have a go in this particular area of reforming disability services, don’t we? Ms Palaszczuk: I started it. I started the trial. Mr NEWMAN: I will take the interjection. She started it, but did she complete it? Did she deliver? No, she did not. But we will deliver. This minister will deliver because we care about regional Queenslanders and we care about the disabled. Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services, Grants Mr MULHERIN: My question is to the Minister for Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services. What reassurance can the minister give non-government organisations that slashing of more than $368 million in grant funding will not result in program cuts and job losses in the community sector? Ms DAVIS: I thank the honourable member for his question. As we have mentioned, yesterday’s budget was an important one for getting Queensland back on track. Mr Bleijie: Once in a generation. Ms DAVIS: Once in a generation, that is right, Attorney. We have had to look at where the important programs are in those critical areas of the disability sector, the community sector and in the child safety sector. What we have done is we have quarantined, in Disability Services, and put $959 million in this financial year into specialist disability services. In Child Safety, with a big black hole of $78 million that was never budgeted for for transitional placements of children out of care, we have had to find money and put it in that space. In a tight fiscal environment there are some areas that have had to be looked at and be reprioritised and that certainly sits in the community sector. We are committed to continuing programs across the community sector in domestic and family violence, homelessness, youth initiatives and seniors programs. We will continue to deliver to those most vulnerable in our community. I am committed to providing the very best outcome for Queenslanders who need to come through the community sector. We are going to work with the community sector in order to provide efficiencies and to determine where we need to be directing our money to get the very best outcomes for people who need our support. Mr Mulherin: What are you going to tell the George Street Neighbourhood Centre? You met with them. Ms DAVIS: Across-the-board we are looking at efficiencies. I take the interjection from the honourable member. There are areas that we are looking at across-the-board. We have been left in a parlous state of economics due to the mismanagement of those opposite. There has been no mapping of services across communities. Unfortunately we find that there is duplication in some of the services. What we are looking at doing is bringing the sector together to identify those areas so that we can ensure that where we are putting our money is best directed to those who need our support the most. Budget, Mining Royalties Mr KRAUSE: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier. Can the Deputy Premier inform the House of the legitimacy of responses to the budget measures to increase mining royalties? Mr SEENEY: I thank the member for Beaudesert for the question, because it is a good question to ask when you see some of the commentary that has been reported overnight about the changes that the Treasurer announced to the royalty regime in the budget yesterday. As I indicated earlier today, those changes were part of a package that affects the mining industry, a package that was announced by the Treasurer in the budget speech yesterday. The budget speech yesterday certainly pointed out that this government has taken extensive action on the expenses side of the budget. It is also appropriate that we look at the revenue side of the budget. Just as hard decisions were made on the expenses side of the budget—and, as the Premier pointed out today, regrettable decisions had to be made on that side of the budget—so it was appropriate to make some tough decisions on the other side of the equation. 1834 Questions Without Notice 12 Sep 2012

The revenue opportunities for a state such as Queensland are very limited, but one of the main revenue opportunities for this state is the royalty regime that is applied to the resources industry, and principally the coal industry because it is the biggest part of the resources industry. So it was no surprise that this government looked at that opportunity. We would have been irresponsible if we did not. We looked at that royalty regime and compared it with other regimes that exist around the world. We looked at the changes that we might make and how they might affect the cost structure of the industry. As I said earlier, the royalties that those companies pay are only a very small part of the cost structure that the industry carries. We structured the royalty regime to ensure that it allowed the people of Queensland to benefit from the boom in coal prices when it comes. We set the royalty regime for a 10-year period. It is inevitable that over the next 10 years coal prices will go up and they will go down. They will go up and they will go down a couple of times in that 10-year period. That is what we would expect. We want to ensure that when the coal prices do go up the people of Queensland get the benefit. That is why we set a royalty regime that does not increase the royalty for coal below $100 a tonne. There is no change to a royalty below $100 a tonne. When the price of coal reaches $100 a tonne there is an increase in the royalty. There is an increase in the royalty when it goes over $150 a tonne. Some of the responses from the mining companies have stretched the bounds of credibility. To suggest that an increase that equates to $2.75 at $180 a tonne will cause the industry to move away from Queensland is an absolute nonsense. We will ensure the industry has a future but we will ensure the people of Queensland benefit as well. Budget, Jobs Mr PITT: My question is to the Treasurer and Minister for Trade. I refer to previous comments by the Treasurer about Labor’s so-called debt binge. In view of the LNP’s plan to add $20 billion in borrowings in the next two years I ask: will the Treasurer confirm that yesterday’s budget papers prove that 14,000 job cuts are not to pay down debt but are to fund poorly costed election promises? Ms Palaszczuk interjected. Madam SPEAKER: I warn the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Pitt interjected. Madam SPEAKER: I warn the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr NICHOLLS: It is indeed a delight and a pleasure to answer the question of the honourable member, the shadow Treasurer. I have been sitting here for some considerable time waiting for a question from the shadow Treasurer. I have been counting up the days, and I think we are now up to day 22, and this is the first question on economics or the state’s finances that the shadow Treasurer has actually asked. I think a round of applause is deserved for, after all this time, the first question about economics or finance, not one of the politically barbed ones he threw in about how much Peter Costello was being paid or how many sheets of paper on a toilet roll or something like that which he normally contemplates somewhere, obviously. For the benefit of the shadow Treasurer, in terms of our election costings and our election commitments, let us not forget our election commitments were fully costed and fully laid out in a 30-page document that was signed off by Mr Len Scanlan, the former Auditor-General, appointed by a Labor government that appointed him to a number of boards. He said these costings add up. They did add up. If the shadow Treasurer was earning his money and doing the job, he would of course turn to page 17 in budget paper No. 2. It is not that far in. He would look beyond the introduction—that he can read because it is in big writing—but when you get to the smaller writing you have to work a bit harder. Table 2.2 is the net operating balance. Under ‘Measures’ it says ‘Election commitments’. I will take the honourable member to it because I know he needs a little bit of assistance and I want to show him the benefit of the papers. He does need to read them, of course. Under ‘Election commitments’, the impact budgetwise in 2012-13 is minus $183 million. In 2013-14 it goes up to plus $350 million. The next page outlines the fiscal balance. The fiscal balance is the one the honourable member does not understand. It shows savings of $2 million, $95 million— Mr Pitt interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, we will pause the clock. I now warn the Manager of Opposition Business under standing order 253A. He will cease the interjections. Mr NICHOLLS: If you add those up across the negatives and the positives—you usually do that in about grade 6 or 7—you get a net number that will show that the total cost of our commitments out to 2014-15 was out by $63 million. Let us look at what we were going to get from the Labor Party. I will find that little piece of paper. This is a favourite of mine and I have even put green pen on it. It states, ‘Labor releases fully funded plan for Qld’s future.’ Do members remember the $1.1 billion From Mines to Minds program— Mr Newman: It was royalties. 12 Sep 2012 Questions Without Notice 1835

Mr NICHOLLS:—for royalties that did not exist and had already been spent? My solution to the shadow Treasurer is to read the budget papers. It is all there in black and white. (Time expired) Madam SPEAKER: Order! Mr Mulherin interjected. Mr Nicholls interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease the interjections across the chamber. I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and also ask the Treasurer to cease the exchange across the chamber after time has expired. Budget Mr GIBSON: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Could the Treasurer please inform the House as to the once-in-a-generation measures taken in the 2012-13 Newman government budget and any alternative views? Mr NICHOLLS: It is with almost the same sense of delight that I answered the question from the shadow Treasurer that I now receive a question from the honourable member for Gympie, because I know, unlike those opposite and those who were here with those opposite, he is, of course, very concerned to know what is going on with the finances, to pay attention and to understand what is going on. Before I turn to the member for Gympie’s question, I will finalise the answer that I was giving to the member for Mulgrave. His complaint was that I was not answering the second part of the question. I thought, ‘How lucky can a man be? Not only do I have the first part to answer, but I have a second part to answer as well.’ In relation to the debt number, what will be the debt outcome under this budget? In 2014-15, the debt outcome will be $4.4 billion less than Labor planned for and by 2015-16 the debt will be $6.6 billion less than Labor planned for. The interest payment will be $1.3 billion less than Labor was going to pay out on its debt and deficit. Our net financial liabilities will be starting to trend back down to 110 per cent, not up to 130 per cent where they were under Labor. I refer the shadow Treasurer to a much thinner piece of the budget papers—that is, Budget Paper No. 1, the budget speech. It outlines what is going on. Now I turn to what the member for Gympie asked about, in terms of the measures we are undertaking. Of course this is a once-in-a-generation budget, as the member for Gympie truly understands. It is a budget for Queensland’s future and ends the debt and deficit legacy of Labor and the addiction to debt and deficit that Labor had. It is important because it outlines the plan to bring the budget back into a fiscal surplus. It pays down the debt, as I have just explained for the second time to the shadow Treasurer. It delivers on all of our election commitments, providing cost-of-living relief for Queenslanders. Every time they turn on a tap in South-East Queensland, flick on their power switch, go to register their car or take their rubbish out, they are saving money because of what we have delivered. The budget delivers for our schools as well. It delivers $200 million over two years to address the $300 million maintenance backlog identified in the independent Commission of Audit report. I wonder if they agree with that? They probably do not, but it is there and we are putting $200 million into it. I heard the honourable member for Surfers Paradise talk about the president of the Teachers Union, who was complaining that we were giving up to $160,000 to P&C associations to do the work. He insinuated that in some way those P&C people, the people who spend the time in the schools and do the work, were going to trouser that money for their own benefit. The challenge for the opposition is to dissociate themselves and say he was wrong— (Time expired) Corrective Services Staff, Safety Mr BYRNE: Will the Minister for Police and Community Safety guarantee that the safety of prison staff and the community will not be compromised by the LNP’s decisions to cut jail staff and to alter agreements regarding rostering? Madam SPEAKER: Order! The question was to the police and community safety minister. Mr DEMPSEY: Can the member repeat the last bit of the question? Madam SPEAKER: Can the member for Rockhampton repeat the question? Mr BYRNE: I will repeat the whole question. Will the minister guarantee that the safety of prison staff and the community will not be compromised by the LNP’s decision to cut jail staff and to alter agreements regarding rostering? Mr DEMPSEY: I thank the member for Rockhampton, who has oversight of the shadow portfolio for police and corrective services, for the question. Obviously, the government has had to make a number of tough decisions through the budget. We are working with Queensland Corrective Services. 1836 Questions Without Notice 12 Sep 2012

Only yesterday there were a number of wildcat strikes at a number of centres in Queensland, particularly affecting the Lotus Glen Correctional Centre. Last night, the Industrial Relations Commission ruled that those strikes were invalid and ordered the workers back to their work sites. It also ordered that striking officers will not be able to participate in any further strikes or interruptions for another 90 days. In relation to the Lotus Glen prison, we are increasing the time prisoners remain in their cells from 10 hours to 11 hours—that is, increasing it by one hour. That will not mean the loss of a single job. It means Corrective Services officers will gain one shift a month in relation to the running of the prison, for which they will be paid quite adequately. As I have learnt through this portfolio, Corrective Services officers are some of the finest men and women involved in corrective services throughout Australia. They do a terrific job. One can see they enjoy their job and they understand the difficulties in their job. Currently we are going through EB processes and I cannot comment too much on that, but I implore the unions to work in a fair and reasonable manner with this government, as we will continue to work in a fair and reasonable way to make sure that the Corrective Services officers have terrific jobs and entitlements in the future and we have the highest standard of prisons. To answer the other part of the question, at no time was there a safety risk to any part of the community. When these occurrences happen, contingency plans come into place. We also work with local police officers to make sure that the perimeters of the prisons are locked down and meet community expectations, as well as ensuring the safety of the prisoners themselves.

Budget, Transport and Main Roads

Dr DAVIS: My question without notice is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. Would the minister please outline to the House what the Newman government is doing in the Transport and Main Roads portfolio to put the interests of Queensland first? Mr EMERSON: I thank the member for that question because there is good news in Transport and Main Roads in this budget for Queensland. In terms of public transport, we have a record TransLink budget this year—$1.6 billion. That is a record public transport budget. In terms of roads, more than $4 billion will be delivered for Queensland roads this year. That is $1 billion more than was scheduled under Labor for this year—$1 billion more is being delivered this year than what Labor had scheduled to do this year. Particularly, we are putting front and centre the Bruce Highway. We are putting in $415 million this year to the Bruce Highway—$415 million. On top of that $415 million, we are putting $200 million on the table. We are saying is that, if the federal government comes to the party in terms of the Bruce Highway, we will put in an additional $200 million. That is what we are doing on the Bruce Highway. Ms Palaszczuk: Have you driven the Bruce? Mr EMERSON: Why are we focusing on the Bruce Highway? Because the RACQ has said that that lifeline for this state, that 1,700 kilometres— Ms Palaszczuk: Do you know where the Bruce Highway is? Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, I will start warning you under standing orders. I have been very lenient but your interjections are constant. Please cease the interjections. I call the minister. Mr EMERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Why have we focused on the Bruce Highway, putting it front and centre in this budget? Because the RACQ, which yesterday welcomed our stance on roads and welcomed our commitment to the Bruce Highway, has said that if money is not allocated to the Bruce Highway over the next 10 years there will be between 300 and 400 deaths on that road over the next 10 years. Under the federal budget there was not any additional money for the Bruce Highway. I have been speaking to the federal minister, Anthony Albanese, and I am sure that the lobbying from us will get some extra money for the Bruce Highway. But, while the federal government might put some extra money in, I know what state Labor’s plan is for the Bruce Highway: their policy is zero funds for the Bruce Highway. That is their policy—zero dollars in state money for the Bruce Highway. That is what they have said because the member for Mulgrave, the shadow minister for main roads, has said that state money being spent on the Bruce Highway is misspending of state money—misspending of money on the Bruce Highway. So, while the federal government I hope will put money in, we know that a state government under Labor—if they ever get back in—will put in zero dollars. That is their policy. In this budget we have put in $415 million this year to the Bruce Highway—$415 million. The LNP has a plan for the Bruce Highway; the ALP has no plan and no credibility on the Bruce Highway. 12 Sep 2012 Questions Without Notice 1837

Instrumental Music Programs Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education. It has been confirmed by this government that the previous government’s funding of Big Brother, a private venture, will remain at $200,000. The funding for school music programs such as Fanfare and MOST, also around $200,000, has been removed. Given the significant cultural value of Fanfare and MOST compared to the rather dubious value of some reality programs, will the minister review these funding priorities and renew support for these school music programs? Mr LANGBROEK: I thank the honourable member for the question. We are actually talking about two different portfolios there. It is the Minister for the Arts who has that responsibility and who dealt with that issue a couple of weeks ago. This government has in this budget made some very, very tough decisions, as other ministers have said. I made phone calls yesterday to people who are having to undergo these cuts, and they are of course tough decisions that we have made. There are a number of decisions that have affected musical groups and grants that range in value from $1,000 to some hundreds of thousands of dollars. But the important thing was that we were protecting the front line. That is exactly why decisions were made. Even when teachers were in positions at places like the theatre company or the symphony orchestra, where they had been outsourced to those companies to help them with those very valuable cultural activities, we took the decision that to protect the front line those teachers should come back to the front line. That is why those decisions were made. I am not going to comment about every particular decision that was made in every portfolio. Suffice to say that, with the Treasurer going through every line of the budget with us, all of us as ministers have had to take these very, very tough decisions. It has not been easy. We have said to the stakeholders that as the budget gets better of course we will look to try to turn these decisions around, but we are also encouraging those organisations to come to us and work with us to try to work through some innovative solutions like we did with MOST and like we did with the other program that we worked on with James Morrison to restore, Fanfare—that very successful band competition. We are looking to work with these organisations who in this budget have had to wear what we have had to decide, but we have said to them that we know that they do valuable work and we need to make that sure we do not lose the intellectual property in the very great things that we do. In the budget we have pointed out of course the wonderful things that we are doing in education, not least of which is funding the maintenance backlog that those opposite left us—nearly $300 million. It is a significant amount that would have blown out to over $600 million in the out years if we had not done something about it. Thankfully the Premier and Treasurer have seen fit to make sure that we can give individual schools up to $160,000 over the next couple of years to get rid of what is on their maintenance register. Schools may even need more and, if we have some schools that need less, we are going to look at making sure that we have the flexibility to say, ‘If this is what local communities need, we will make sure they get funded so that they can get these things fixed,’ unlike what those opposite say. What do they say? ‘We’ll tell you what you are going to get. We will overspend it because QBuild will overcharge you by 25 per cent and we don’t get as many projects.’ With our scheme, we will get five funded for the cost of four under what they would do. Budget, Agriculture Industry Mr BENNETT: My question without notice is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Can the minister advise how the budget will help Queensland primary producers to double food production by 2040? Mr McVEIGH: I thank the member for his question because I know full well how important agriculture, fisheries and forestry are to him in his electorate. Agriculture’s future, as the House knows, is one of the four pillars of the Queensland economy and has been secured in the Newman government’s first budget and, as such, will help Queensland along the path through this budget of doubling food production by 2040. The budget delivers on the government’s priorities—$442.4 million has been invested in the now stand-alone department of agriculture. Funding is being directed into key areas, including $7.6 million over four years for research and development to increase productivity of Queensland’s key export industries. This includes $3 million to build research and development capacity; $4.6 million specifically for sugar research development and extension to increase the productivity of Queensland’s $1.2 billion sugarcane industry; and $4.8 million for research to develop Queensland as the food bowl of Asia, as announced by the Treasurer just yesterday—as a leading exporter of pulses to Asia, especially India. We are also working hard to improve the availability of labour and skills for Queensland’s agricultural industries by investing some $3.5 million over three years in workforce planning and training. This breaks down into half a million to develop a horticulture workforce plan and $3 million to improve training in conjunction with the industry, universities, training providers and schools. We are also investing in our strategic agricultural cropping land audit, which will help identify current and future food production areas in Queensland. 1838 Questions Without Notice 12 Sep 2012

Fisheries is another important industry sector and we recognise this, with $10 million over two years including $9 million for the voluntary buyback program of commercial fishing licences N1 and N2 and up to $1 million for sustainability measures including enhanced monitoring of fisheries on a regional basis. Biosecurity services are another big winner, with $6 million over four years including 15 new front- line officers. In capital works programs there is $3 million for new facilities in beef, $4 million for upgrades in research and development facilities across the state, and $1.1 million to continue replacing boats and operational facilities for fisheries research. This common-sense budget is all about getting Queensland’s agriculture back on track. Our primary producers and stakeholders, such as AgForce and the Queensland Farmers Federation, understand that. As Minister for Agriculture, I look forward to working with them and the industries across the state to ensure that we double the food production by 2040. Baal Gammon Mine Mr KNUTH: My question without notice is to the Minister for Environment. The Baal Gammon mine development near Herberton has caused dangerously high levels of contamination to downstream waterways which include Jamie Creek and the Walsh River, causing fish kills and affecting communities which rely on these waterways. Will the minister ensure that, before his department approves any other new development in this area, problems associated with the contamination with the existing mine development are appropriately rectified? Mr POWELL: I thank the north-west branch of the Labor Party for yet another question. Mr Knuth: You still haven’t got rid of the bats. Mr POWELL: I take that interjection from the member for Dalrymple, because the member for Dalrymple is in a bit of a sticky situation. Unlike his colleague to his right, the member for Mount Isa has spoken to the Mount Isa City Council and ensured that the mayor and those councillors are sitting down with my department to resolve the issues of flying foxes in and around Mount Isa. There is an example of a practical outcome around flying foxes. The fact that the member for Dalrymple is incapable of achieving the same for his community is reflective of him and not of the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. Again, my department stands ready and waiting to work with the Charters Towers Regional Council on its flying fox issues. I again reiterate that every DMP we have received from Charters Towers Regional Council has been addressed in full since we have come to office. I now turn from the interjection to the question which has been asked which regards Baal Gammon mine. As I mentioned in my ministerial statement, the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection and I, as the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, take very seriously our role as the environmental regulator for this state. Where an industry is doing the right thing, we will not be a roadblock. But where it is doing the wrong thing we will ensure the full force of the Environmental Protection Act or the Nature Conversation Act is used. In this instance yet again we have sat down with the administrators of Baal Gammon mine and determined that the best way to proceed to address the contamination issues of that site is to commence mining again and only once we were assured that the financial assurance required to make certain that in future the environmental rehabilitation of that site is delivered has been provided. I can advise the member for Dalrymple that on 31 August this year that financial assurance was lodged with the Queensland government. We are working with the administrator to ensure that that mine is operating again, that the environmental measures are addressed and that the environmental conditions in terms of the water quality in the creek as they pertain to that operation are of the highest standard as expected under the conditions applied to that company. As I have said, we are going to be a firm but fair regulator. Where the industry is doing the right thing, we will work with it. I thank the administrators for working with my department in delivering this great outcome for North Queensland. Budget, Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts Mrs MADDERN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts. Can the minister outline what the government is doing in the Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts portfolio to put Queensland’s future first? Ms BATES: I thank the member for Maryborough for the question. I also thank her and the member for Burdekin for helping me out this week in attending arts functions for me while I have been injured. It gives me great pleasure today to update the chamber on the status of my department. Yesterday the Newman government delivered the most important budget in a generation. It is a budget for Queensland’s future, setting the state free from a future of debt and decline. My department is doing everything it can to assist. We are delivering major ICT savings to Queenslanders to the tune of $40,000 per hour on contractors engaged on jobs where the government already had the staff. 12 Sep 2012 Questions Without Notice 1839

My department is currently undertaking the first-ever whole-of-government ICT audit. The audit has already identified problems so big that they could cost as much as $6 billion to fix. Almost 1,000 systems used to deliver services across government have not been replaced by their use-by date, leaving us open to major system failures. Obviously with the fiscal constraints that we have we are going to have to look at new and innovative ways to deal with the problems, in particular, going out to the market for assistance. We have put a stop to Labor’s corporate welfare handouts in our science department. Our strategy is a hand up, not a handout, with a commitment to improving collaboration between researchers and business. We have delivered on our promise to provide $42.12 million for the creation of an Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine at James Cook University, giving our researchers the tools to compete on a global scale. The Queensland Chief Scientist is no longer living the sham of Labor’s Q2. Instead, he is now properly in charge of science policy and will drive the Newman government’s new science direction. A new era has also dawned in my innovation portfolio. The Queensland government knows the best way to increase innovation is to make our state a great place to do business. That is why we are changing the culture of government from one that promotes red tape to one that reduces it. We are clearing the roadblocks and making innovation attractive again. Finally, I turn to my vision for the arts. Under the Newman government the grants process will be clear and transparent, and Queensland taxpayers will get bang for their buck. To make this happen, I have announced a new grants investment advisory board and an arts grant support officer. They will be a one-stop shop for grants. We have also delivered on our promise to take arts to all Queenslanders with a $3 million commitment through the Regional Arts Fund, and our $3 million superstar fund is another new initiative aimed at putting Queensland productions under the international spotlight. As you can see, Madam Speaker, there is much change underway and I look forward to updating the House in the future on the progress we have made reforming the Queensland government. Budget, Redundancies Mrs MILLER: My question is to the Premier. I refer the Premier to comments made by the Treasurer on Channel 7 last night and to the Premier’s comments on Lateline last night about contradictions in the budget papers about the number of redundancies offered in Queensland Health, and I table the transcripts. Tabled paper: Extract from transcript of Channel Seven News, 11 September 2012 [1023]. Tabled paper: Extract from transcript of Lateline, 11 September 2012 [1024]. I ask: which ministers’ figures are right—the Treasurer’s figures, the Minister for Health’s figures or the Premier’s figures? Mr NEWMAN: I am delighted to answer this question which seems to have transfixed the attention of the opposition today as we have seen on a number of occasions. I say to the honourable members opposite that the figures in the budget papers are basically of course correct, but there is a bit of complexity about this because as we have said— Opposition members interjected. Mr NEWMAN: I hear the guffaws. I know it is funny. One minute they care about job losses. Don’t laugh at the people who are losing their jobs. It is not on. We care about it. An opposition member: You are sacking them! Mr NEWMAN: We care about it. They laugh at people losing their jobs. Every single person is an individual, and they come in here and treat this as a political issue. This is not a puerile political issue; this is about people’s livelihoods. Shame on them for debasing this in a political way. Shame on them. This is about people’s livelihoods. The total number of Queensland Health redundancies—that is, 2,754—was revealed on Friday by the health minister along with a full account of the process that minimised the job impact of corporate changes and the $150 million cost of the dysfunctional Health payroll system. There are some false claims now in his public statement— Opposition members interjected. Mr NEWMAN: They might listen to this. They have asked the question. Again, do you want to trivialise and politicise this, or do you want to know the answer about people’s livelihoods and future? Madam SPEAKER: Order! The interjections from my left will cease. I will allow the Premier to answer the question. Mr NEWMAN: If they were a better opposition—and they have 22 or so staff to do the job for them—they would have noticed that the minister reported in his public statement on Friday that in dollar terms the budgetary starting point for the changes was a reduction of $326 million or a state-wide FTE 1840 Questions Without Notice 12 Sep 2012 saving of 4,142. Does the penny start to drop for those opposite? So at the end of the process, the monetary target will be achieved with an overall staff reduction of 2,754 FTE. How have they done this? The raw figure of 4,142 was reduced by dollar savings equivalent to 1,004 FTEs. We said all along that Queensland Health has people coming and going, that there are more people going to the front line, that there are people leaving from the back of office. It is a large organisation that is in constant change and this has been managed by the 17 local hospital health boards. But I tell those opposite something: we would heal a lot more sick people if we had $1.2 billion more. We could heal the sick, build new hospitals and revitalise front-line health services. Public Servants Mrs FRANCE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Premier. Can the minister please inform the House what measures are in place to assist staff who are being affected by the state government’s restructure process? Mr ELMES: I thank the honourable member for Pumicestone for her question. The government is providing support to help public servants impacted by the consequences of Labor’s mismanagement of the state’s finances. We understand that the proposed changes to Queensland’s Public Service workforce are hard on the community, and it is not something that we would do if we had a choice. It was with this in mind that the government increased by four weeks the incentive payment available for tenured public servants who elect to immediately accept an early redundancy offer. Under the revised early retirement, redundancy and retrenchment directive issued by this government, the voluntary redundancy package available to surplus employees includes a number of points. They include: a payment of $6,500 or 12 weeks pay at the employee’s substantive level, whichever is the greater, if an employee exits the agency on or by a specified date; two weeks full-time pay per full-time equivalent year of service and a proportionate amount for an incomplete year of service, with a minimum of four weeks pay and a maximum of 52 weeks; a payout of the employee’s accrued recreation leave; and a payout of the employee’s accrued long service leave if the employee has worked for at least one year. The government is also committed to helping displaced officers who do not take a voluntary redundancy to find alternative work through the government’s employee placement program. The Newman government’s vision is for a renewed, refocused and more effective Public Service which is focused on the core and essential services that the people of Queensland need and deserve. Unfortunately, there are some tough decisions that the government has had to make to achieve this to restore the state’s finances to a sustainable level. We wish there was an easier path to take but there simply is not. We understand the importance of employment for public servants, and we also understand the importance of having the state’s finances in a healthy condition to be able to employ more people in the future as services expand. As for the public servants affected by the renewal program, we are doing everything we possibly can to minimise those impacts. Employee assistance programs to offer advice and counselling for affected staff are available across all agencies and staff are proactively making them aware of that. We know that the decision to accept a redundancy package is not easy for some people. This government is committed to ensuring we provide as much support as we can to those employees throughout the process. Wherever it was possible, our first step to reduce the number of employees was through reducing non-essential, temporary and contract positions. The restructure strategy we are implementing forms part of a longer term organised process to restore Queensland’s financial strength. Budget, Queensland Rail Ms TRAD: My question without notice is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. In relation to the $372 million cut from Queensland Rail, will the minister advise how much of the savings relates to job cuts, particularly in relation to track maintenance? Mr EMERSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. I am always very pleased to talk about Queensland Rail because, as the member would know, very soon after we came to office we put in our rail reliability audit. Why was that? It was because under Labor we found that rail reliability hit a three-year low. When the audit came back, what did they detail about how Labor had been performing? Let us not forget who was the transport minister at that time. It was the Leader of the Opposition. Under the Leader of the Opposition’s watch, we saw that three-year low for rail reliability. What did the report say? The report said there had been a piecemeal approach to maintenance. But what happened? What was the Leader of the Opposition’s— Mr Newman: Did they maintain it at all? Mr EMERSON: I take the interjection from the Premier because we saw those disasters on rail when the Leader of the Opposition was transport minister. That was her performance. Premier, you would be interested to know that she had a great focus on making sure more money went to corporate 12 Sep 2012 Questions Without Notice 1841 services, more money went to finance and more money went into marketing—that was the Leader of the Opposition’s focus on Queensland Rail. I have to tell the House that I was surprised the other week when we had a request from the opposition office asking for a familiarisation for Queensland Rail. Given the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was— Ms TRAD: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to rule on relevance. I have asked a question about job cuts in maintenance and he is talking about audits. Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: There are too many interjections across the chamber. I ask the minister to address the question. Mr EMERSON: So we had a request from the opposition office for a familiarisation for Queensland Rail. It was, I have to admit, for the member for South Brisbane but one would have thought that, rather than asking us for that, she could have lent across the table and spoken to her Leader of the Opposition who had been the transport minister in charge of Queensland Rail. One would have thought she could have asked the questions and got those answers. But do they talk? Did she actually— Mr Newman: Do they talk at all? Mr EMERSON: Who knows, Premier. Obviously, she— Mr Mulherin interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition under standing order 253A. I call the minister. Mr EMERSON: Maybe the Leader of the Opposition did not know what was happening with Queensland Rail when she was transport minister because we did see that three-year low on rail reliability. We saw 60 to 120 per cent increases in the corporate and marketing areas and those kinds of areas. That was the kind of performance we saw from the Leader of the Opposition when she was transport minister—the self-confessed lazy transport minister. Budget, Natural Resources and Mines Mr YOUNG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines. Can the minister outline what the government is doing in the Natural Resources and Mines portfolio to put Queensland’s future first? Mr CRIPPS: The reform process being undertaken by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines has successfully preserved the key front-line and critical programs that protect Queensland’s natural resources and support sustainable agricultural practices. The Newman LNP government will provide $11 million in funding this year for Queensland’s 14 community based regional natural resource management bodies. The Queensland Regional NRM Investment Program will ensure the big issues confronting natural resource management in Queensland, including controlling pest weeds and feral animals and improving water quality, are addressed. Queensland’s regional area NRM bodies provide invaluable local knowledge and expertise in managing natural resources in the regions and are important stakeholders responsible for raising community awareness about regional NRM issues. They are able to make a real difference to the health of the environment at regional catchment and at a local level as well. Over the coming year, about 1,000 on-the-ground, practical projects will be undertaken, with 45 per cent of the investment going into controlling pests, weeds and feral animals, 25 per cent enhancing sustainable agriculture and 25 per cent improving water quality. These significant levels of investment in sensible projects reflect the NRM priorities of the new Department of Natural Resources and Mines under the LNP. Five of the regional NRM bodies—Burnett Mary Regional Group, Fitzroy Basin Association, NQ Dry Tropics in the Burdekin, Reef Catchments in the Mackay-Whitsunday area and Terrain NRM in the Wet Tropics—will share in $1 million to facilitate their involvement in the Paddock to Reef program for catchments adjacent to Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef. Their work assists in ensuring agricultural and land management practices in reef catchment areas are always improving and achieving world’s best practice. Regional NRM bodies in other areas of Queensland, such as south-west and desert channels country; the gulf and the Cape York areas; and the Condamine, Maranoa and Balonne river catchments are actively working with local communities to control pests, weeds and feral animals. This funding will help to ensure regional NRM bodies can continue the great work that they are doing to support the agricultural, resource and tourism pillars of the economy and foster sustainable economic growth across Queensland. I know that the electorate of the member for Keppel will benefit from that funding. Certainly many regional and rural members of this House will have a strong association with their regional NRM groups. I am sure that they will welcome this funding to ensure that practical, sensible projects for natural resource management will continue for this year. Madam SPEAKER: The time for questions has expired. 1842 Family Responsibilities Commission Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

School Group Tours Madam SPEAKER: I acknowledge the schools visiting parliament today which are Eagle Junction State School, represented by the Treasurer, and St Joseph’s Primary School from Murwillumbah in New South Wales.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction Resumed from 11 September (see p. 1809). Hon. GW ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Premier) (3.31 pm), continuing: I rise to continue with the introduction of the Family Responsibilities Commission Amendment Bill 2012. The Commission operates to restore local Indigenous authority and build stronger and more resilient communities through attaching behavioural obligations to the receipt of welfare payments. The Family Responsibilities Commission Amendment Bill 2012 is a necessary pre-condition for an extension of the trial for a second time. The act and the trial were originally scheduled to expire on 1 January this year, but were extended for 12 months and currently expire on 1 January 2013. The key aim of any Indigenous community intervention must be to build the capacity of the community so community members can have greater control over determining their own future and reduce reliance on government support. That can only be achieved if the community is prepared to accept that challenge and the responsibility that goes with it. Sometimes, assistance is needed to achieve that. The trial is a partnership between the Queensland government, the Australian government and the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership. The Queensland government is committed to maximising the benefits of the trial. The Australian government has also requested that the trial be extended for an additional 12 months. I had questions about extending the trial because we are still waiting for the results of an independent evaluation of the trial, which is being overseen by the Commonwealth government. My concern was that we did not have all necessary data to make a fully informed decision because the Commonwealth government has not provided the final evaluation report, which was due at the end of last year. The latest advice my department has is that the final report is now expected in November. I expect that the final evaluation report, when it is ultimately received, will inform future decisions in relation to the provision of more appropriate and effective services to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. As a precursor to extending the trial, my department undertook extensive stakeholder and community consultations in Brisbane, Cairns, Mossman Gorge, Coen, Hope Vale and Aurukun. Indications are that services provided through the trial have had some success in improving school attendance and reducing antisocial behaviour. The consultation demonstrated that there is widespread support for the continuation of the FRC for a further year and for the continuation of key programs associated with the trial, such as parenting assistance. A commonly held view emerged that those programs are having a positive effect on the behaviour of communities, with improved social cohesion compared to that before the trial. The principal objective of the bill is to make the necessary amendments to the FRC Act to ensure that the operations of the FRC are extended by 12 months to 1 January 2014. To address the practical difficulties that have been experienced because the current provisions relating to the FRC board require that all three board members attend meetings, the bill removes this requirement and provides that a quorum for these meetings is composed of two members. Trial processes have been reviewed as part of the review of all programs by this government. For the continuation of the trial, changes are proposed to the overall governance arrangements and improved reporting requirements to ensure the greatest benefits for the communities involved. Community leaders from the four communities will be invited to be part of a new advisory board with representatives from the state and Commonwealth governments and a representative of the Cape York institute to oversee the trial during the extension period. The board will provide advice to me on how $4 million in project based funding provided by the Queensland government for the trial extension might be used. These new governance arrangements will be linked to the implementation of rigorous project management to ensure that services are delivered and milestones are achieved together with close scrutiny of each project to ensure value for money. To ensure the continued operation of the FRC for a further 12 months, amendments to the FRC Act need to be passed and given assent or proclaimed prior to the expiry of the current act on 1 January 2013. The appointment or re-appointment of commission and board members will also be required. Extending the operation of the FRC for a year will provide continued support for the restoration of 12 Sep 2012 Water Leg. (Dam Safety & Water Supply E’ment) & O’r Leg. A’ment Bill 1843 socially responsible standards of behaviour and local authority in the trial communities and improve the wellbeing of community members. The Cape York Welfare Reform trial is driven by a basic principle, which underlies the Newman government’s Indigenous agenda—that state government programs and funding are directed towards improving the stability and sustainability of Indigenous communities. Our focus is on overcoming disadvantage by providing support and structures which enable communities to achieve better social and economic outcomes in areas like health, housing, education and employment. I look forward to continuing to work with the Commonwealth government and Indigenous communities in the pursuit of one aim: assisting Indigenous Queenslanders to secure a better standard of living and quality of life. I commend the bill to the House. First Reading Hon. GW ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Premier) (3.38 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Referral to the Health and Community Services Committee Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Watts): Order! In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is now referred to the Health and Community Services Committee.

WATER LEGISLATION (DAM SAFETY AND WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Water Leg. (Dam Safety & Water Supply E’ment) & O’r Leg. A’ment Bill

Introduction Hon. MF McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (Minister for Energy and Water Supply) (3.38 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Electricity Act 1994, the Water Act 2000, the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008 and the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Regulation 2011 for particular purposes. I table the bill and the explanatory notes. I nominate the State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: Water Legislation (Dam Safety and Water Supply Enhancement) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 [1025]. Tabled paper: Water Legislation (Dam Safety and Water Supply Enhancement) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, explanatory notes [1026]. The Water Legislation (Dam Safety and Water Supply Enhancement) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill implements a number of the recommendations of the final report of the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry delivered in March 2012, and also reduces the regulatory burden on some of the water services industry. The government responded to the commission’s final report of 7 June 2012 by committing to implement all 177 recommendations. This bill demonstrates that the government has taken swift action to deliver on the changes needed to improve Queensland’s preparedness to deal with future floods or other disasters. The government acknowledges the pain and suffering caused by the devastating floods of 2010- 11 and that some people are still going through the process of rebuilding their lives. The initiatives in this bill will help the community to be better informed and better prepared for any similar events in the future. This bill addresses nine dam safety recommendations. It will provide a more transparent regulatory framework to govern dams and will improve resilience and engagement between owners of referable dams—those that potentially pose a risk to people if they were to fail—and local communities. The bill amends the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008 to introduce objective criteria to assist the minister determine which water supply dams with sufficient flood storage capacity should be operated under an approved flood mitigation manual. The bill provides for the responsible minister to consider the criteria in nominating dams as flood mitigation dams. This will provide clarity on the purpose of flood mitigation manuals and will provide a sound platform for consideration of the outcomes of detailed operational studies being undertaken into optimising the operations of the Wivenhoe, Somerset and North Pine dams. The bill stipulates the content for a flood mitigation manual and establishes the minister as the approving authority for flood mitigation manuals, as recommended by the Floods Commission of Inquiry. This is appropriate given the importance of decisions about flood mitigation manuals to the downstream 1844 Water Leg. (Dam Safety & Water Supply E’ment) & O’r Leg. A’ment Bill 12 Sep 2012 communities, especially along the Brisbane River. It also ensures that future manuals appropriately balance key objectives such as minimising risk to human life and property from controlled flood releases and avoiding the more catastrophic risks that would arise in the extremely rare event that the dam were to fail. Until now, much of the dam safety regulatory framework has rested on dam safety conditions imposed individually on dam owners. This bill will make the framework more transparent to the community and more robust by replacing some of these conditions with universal obligations. One such obligation is the requirement to prepare emergency action plans. These plans outline how a dam owner is to respond to an emergency and how communities affected will be notified of emergencies. The bill will require all owners of referable dams to prepare emergency action plans, which are to be submitted to the Department of Energy and Water Supply for approval after review by the chairperson of the relevant local or district disaster management group. The dam owner will be obliged to review their emergency action plan every year to ensure the currency of plans prior to each wet season and to resubmit them at least every five years. The bill establishes requirements for access to, publishing of and control of the emergency action plans. A central website will be established for 24-hour public access to the current approved plans. These provisions respond to the need for the community to have access to accurate information about flood risks and will ensure that dam safety and emergency management arrangements are well integrated and current. The bill streamlines the provisions for declaring temporary full-supply levels for relevant dams to mitigate potential droughts or floods and moves them from the Water Act 2000 to the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008. This will align responsibility for decisions about dam safety and flood mitigation under the one act and reflect the government’s intention to amalgamate the bulk water supply entities and abolish the Queensland Water Commission. Consistent with the government’s commitment to reducing regulatory burden, this bill will defer and reduce the regulatory burden on the water industry by reducing the requirements for low-risk providers to submit certain plans and by reducing the need for small dam owners to undertake failure impact assessments for dams that pose no obvious risk to the public. Ultimately, the bill serves to enhance Queensland’s regulatory frameworks to deliver appropriate risk based outcomes for community safety and security. The bill also addresses the increasing cost to Queensland business and households of the Queensland Solar Bonus Scheme. With more than 500 megawatts of small scale solar capacity connected to the Queensland electricity grid, the Queensland Solar Bonus Scheme has done its job of stimulating the solar industry and making solar power more affordable for Queenslanders. Since the scheme commenced in June 2008, the number of solar photovoltaic installations has increased from 1,200 systems to more than 205,000 systems in July 2012. The rapid uptake of the solar bonus has driven up the costs associated with the scheme to its 2028 end date. These costs were estimated in 2011 to be about $1.8 billion. Higher-than-forecast uptake to June this year suggests that this figure will be conservative. These costs are passed through to Queensland household power bills, meaning that those without solar may face a hike in their electricity bill to pay for their neighbour’s system. The government is committed to reducing cost-of-living burdens on Queensland households, and this means putting in place cost-saving measures for the scheme. On 25 June 2012 I announced that the solar feed-in tariff would drop from 44c to 8c for new customers from 10 July 2012. I also announced that there would be further changes to legislation later this year to end current practices that transfer the 44c tariff between property owners and tenants. This change is expected to limit scheme costs to 2028 by more than $300 million. Passing this bill will amend the Electricity Act 1994 to provide the framework for these important cost reductions. The changes will mean that customers on the 44c tariff must retain the electricity account in their name to continue receiving the 44c. Of course, we will be making an exception to allow name changes between spouses. The changes will also introduce sunset provisions requiring customers who have applied for the 44c tariff to install their photovoltaic system by 30 June 2013. New property owners and tenants who inherit a solar photovoltaic system under the new arrangements or who miss the 30 June 2013 deadline can still save money on their electricity bills and receive 8c per kilowatt hour for their excess power, provided they meet the eligibility requirements for that tariff. The bill will also provide for an end date in regulation of 1 July 2014 for the 8c tariff and update scheme review provisions and requirements for how it is reported. Supporting amendments to the electricity regulation will be required to implement the government’s cost-saving measures in full. These will be progressed subject to parliament’s consideration of the bill. This government is committed to easing pressure on household budgets and delivering savings on energy and water across the state. This is yet another step we are taking in the right direction. I commend the bill to the House. 12 Sep 2012 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1845

First Reading Hon. MF McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (Minister for Energy and Water Supply) (3.46 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Referral to the State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Watts): Order! In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is now referred to the State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee.

ANIMAL CARE AND PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Resumed from 19 June (see p. 745). Second Reading Hon. JJ McVEIGH (Toowoomba South—LNP) (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (3.47 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. Before debate on this bill commences, I wish to reiterate some key points that I made in my explanatory speech. The Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 delivers on the government’s election promise to amend the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 to bring Queensland into line with other states. Queensland is the only Australian jurisdiction with animal welfare legislation that expressly exempts from its application dealing with animals according to Aboriginal tradition or Islander custom. This bill seeks to ensure that animal welfare obligations apply to persons who deal with animals under Aboriginal tradition or Torres Strait Islander custom. The bill balances the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in maintaining their traditional and customary practices and the expectations of the broader community, including many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, about animal welfare. Recent media reports of methods used by some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to hunt dugong and turtles raised concern earlier this calendar year that the current exemption is too easily exploited by some rogue hunters who have no regard for animal welfare. For at least 10 years prior to that, animal welfare interest groups and others, including some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, have voiced concerns about the cruelty of some hunting of sea turtles and dugong and the immunity from prosecution for animal cruelty that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are afforded by the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 if they are hunting in accordance with tradition or custom. The bill will not extinguish native title rights to hunt nor will it rescind any other hunting rights. The bill will regulate how those hunting rights are exercised. The bill demonstrates that this government is serious about acting to protect Queensland’s iconic dugong and turtle populations. I note that the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee conducted an inquiry into this bill. It produced a report on the bill, which was tabled in parliament on 2 July. I am pleased to say that, in its report on the bill, the committee recommended that the bill be passed. I thank the committee and the stakeholders who participated in the inquiry for their careful examination of the bill. I table the Queensland government’s response to report No. 5 on the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. Tabled paper: Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee: Report No. 5—Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, government response [1027]. I also wish to acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders who participated in consultation meetings about the bill during July and those who provided written submissions on the bill. I wish to alert members of the House of my intention to move a number of amendments to the bill during the consideration in detail stage. These amendments follow the government’s consideration of the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee’s report into the bill and additional consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders since that time. The government acknowledges the need for traditional and customary hunters to have a clear understanding of their obligations under the amended Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. That is why today I will move to amend clause 10 of the bill to clarify that there are some hunting practices that would not be permissible under the amended act. The practices described in the amendment are unnecessarily cruel and would never be tolerated. 1846 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

However, I do not propose to be prescriptive about what practices must be used. Hunting practices in circumstances vary from place to place. What methods should be used are best discussed locally by communities looking at how traditional and customary laws about hunting should evolve in response to new knowledge from animal welfare science. I will also move an amendment to clause 3 of the bill to remove subclause 2, which prevents the consumption of turtle and dugong meat taken under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities (Justice, Land and Other Matters) Act 1984 outside of community areas. Instead, the government will be working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders under the leadership of the minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs to develop agreements to manage the transport of dugong and turtle meat. I also announce today that there will be a 12-month grace period for the enforcement of the amended sections of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. This is consistent with the committee’s recommendation in its report on the bill. The extended grace period will allow more time to inform stakeholders of the changes and build consensus on acceptable hunting methods. During this time, the new legislation will not be enforced unless there is serious or deliberate cruelty. Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (3.53 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. As the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has outlined, this bill intends to amend a variety of acts, including the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities (Justice, Land and Other Matters) Act 1984, the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001, the Aurukun and Mornington Shire Leases Act 1978 and the Nature Conservation Act 1992. It is disheartening to see that those opposite are once again trying to push through a piece of legislation in this House that will have major ramifications for individuals outside this place, especially Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, without undertaking proper consultation. We heard the minister say that he would give an extended grace period of 12 months so that consultation could occur. That consultation should occur before the legislation is brought into this House. Short consultation periods have become a calling card for this government which, frankly, is insulting to the people of Queensland. At the outset I would like to put on record that this side of the House supports the protection of animals and providing animals with the highest possible protection that can be afforded to them under our laws. I know that the vast majority of Indigenous people who practise traditional hunting also value animal welfare. I served as the minister responsible for animal welfare from December 2005 until this year’s legislation. During that time, we made a number of advancements to protect animals and safeguard their welfare. The previous Labor government participated in a significant body of work with the Protected Zone Joint Authority to improve dugong protection in the Torres Strait. The PZJA manages both commercial and traditional fishing in the Australian waters of the Torres Strait and designated waters under the authority of Papua New Guinea. During my time as minister, the government introduced new protection for animals by increasing the maximum penalty for cruelty to animals to $100,000 for individuals and $500,000 for corporations. The previous government legislated the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008, which provides a single state-wide framework for responsible cat and dog ownership. I also introduced the pet shop code of practice, which set out a broad range of standards for the conduct of pet shops. This included standards relating to animal housing, hygiene, records management and health care. I produced draft regulations for dog breeders, which aims to shut down puppy farms. These puppy farms usually operate in isolated areas, hidden from the scrutiny of neighbours and the public. Often hundreds of dogs are kept in substandard environments with a lack of animal hygiene and housing processes. The regulations were designed to introduce compulsory registration for large scale dog breeders with regular monitoring activities. They also would have required the microchipping of all puppies with detailed information on the dog breeder and the mother of each litter. These regulations would have made it easier to track the breeder of a particular puppy and introduce accountability and transparency to the industry. They were designed specifically to squeeze unscrupulous puppy farmer operations out of the market. I put those regulations out to public consultation this year and the consultation period ended during the election. As yet, the new minister has not progressed those regulations any further and I hope he will do so in the near future. The previous government also established the Centre for Advanced Animal Science at the University of Queensland Gatton campus. The centre is a world leader in animal welfare as well as animal health— Mr Rickuss: An excellent facility, too. Mr MULHERIN: It is a great facility. It is clear that the previous government’s record on animal welfare is unimpeachable. It is important to recognise that dugong and turtles face a number of threats. The biggest threat to dugong are the loss of seagrass, the loss of habitat, boat strikes and climate change. Unfortunately, this government has not shown itself to be serious in addressing these significant issues. The environment 12 Sep 2012 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1847 minister is a climate change sceptic and spends most of his time dismantling climate programs. Turtles face similar threats from boat strikes, climate change and chemical run-off. The LNP has never been serious about reducing— Mr RICKUSS: I rise to a point of order. I have listened to the member for Mackay speaking and there is no relevance to the bill whatsoever. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Watts): Order! There is no point of order. Mr MULHERIN: Turtles face similar threats from boat strikes, climate change and chemical run- off. The LNP has never been serious about reducing the chemical run-off either, having opposed the Great Barrier Reef protection bill. The federal government has taken action in this area to assist the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to ensure humane practices are used in traditional hunting. Under the stewardship of the federal Environment Minister, Mr Tony Burke, the government has provided $5 million towards Indigenous self-management. Minister Burke realises that this is the best way to ensure that traditional hunting is sustainable and humane. As part of this program, traditional owners have met to outline their priorities to improve management of dugong and sea country in Queensland. This includes tackling illegal hunting and improving monitoring and compliance of traditional hunting. Under that program the federal government is supporting an Indigenous sea country leadership network which provides leadership and policy advice on Indigenous sea country issues including proper practices on the take of marine turtles and dugong. During the extraordinarily brief consultation period, a number of stakeholders raised concerns that the bill may take away native title rights. Section 211 of the federal Native Title Act 1993 ensures native title holders can continue to enjoy traditional activities, including hunting, fishing and gathering. The exemption the LNP is seeking to remove from the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 was designed to ensure compliance with the federal Native Title Act. Of particular concern to many stakeholders were the changes to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities (Justice, Land and Other Matters) Act 1984. This change stipulates that animal products must be consumed in the community or Indigenous regional councils in which they were caught. I understand this change is designed to discourage the sale of turtle and dugong meat. However, I think it may result in serious unintended consequences. I know the minister has indicated that during the 12-month grace period his department will have discussions in relation to the transportation of dugong meat. Once again the consultation occurs after the event. First of all, the sale of protected species is already an offence under the federal Native Title Act as well as the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992. Given trade of dugong and turtle meat is already against the law, it is unclear why provisions are being considered under this act. I understand dugong and turtle meat is used in some traditional cultural ceremonies and this element of the legislation could severely curtail these ceremonies. Many Indigenous people live in regional cities and in Brisbane where it is not possible to undertake a traditional hunt. Therefore, they rely on family and friends to provide them with dugong and turtle meat for traditional practices. This meat is given freely and not traded for financial benefit. Nowhere in the LNP election commitment was this particular change mentioned. It has been sprung, sight unseen, on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders without real consultation. The opposition also harbours reservations over the way Indigenous people have been specifically targeted with this legislation. The Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 also contains an offence exemption for the slaughter of animals as part of a religious ritual. Traditional Indigenous hunting has a significant cultural and spiritual significance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Dugong and turtles are totem animals for many Indigenous communities engaged in traditional hunting. There are particular processes and rituals involved in traditional hunting, in the butchering of the animal and in its consumption. The spiritual aspect of the Indigenous hunting marks it as similar to the ritualistic slaughter of animals for religious purposes. I believe it is problematic and concerning to only address Indigenous hunting when similar animal welfare concerns arise from other religious practices. The government should be addressing these issues in tandem. Under this bill an exemption will continue to stand for religious practices but not for the very similar practices used in Indigenous communities. I also have major concerns with the potential enforcement of this bill. The question must be asked how will this be enforced when jobs are being cut from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The minister has already announced 200 job cuts. In the budget papers it is 450. We know there will be more to come. These are not just front-line jobs, there are rumours a number of Fisheries officers will be sacked as well. Of course, the minister laughably claims that Labor had left his department with too few employees, all the while planning on reducing his department further. The minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot give public servants more responsibilities while firing staff left, right and centre. The government has not acted in good faith with this bill. It has not conducted proper consultation with Indigenous communities and it has refused to listen to any concerns. During the committee inquiry a number of stakeholders raised concerns with the time frame for consideration and lack of consultation. The Local Government Association stated it was very concerned with the lack of consultation associated with this bill and the apparent need for the state government to expedite these legislative amendments. 1848 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

The Torres Strait Regional Authority also raised concerns, saying the Queensland government has failed to carry out an acceptable level of consultation with traditional owners and representatives of traditional owners such as the Torres Strait Regional Authority throughout the development of the proposed amendments. The opposition has spoken to John ‘Toshie’ Kris from the Torres Strait Regional Authority and he is particularly concerned about the amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities (Justice, Land and Other Matters) Act 1984 which were not taken to the election. The chair of the Cape York Land Council, Mr Richie Ahmat, said he was absolutely appalled at the fact that the Cape York Land Council was not even invited to provide a submission to the committee. Even the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, an organisation that would be expected to support more legislation on animal welfare, raised concerns with the lack of consultation. Mr Elmes: Did you have a talk to the RSPCA? Mr MULHERIN: That was the RSPCA. Mr Elmes: You should have another talk to them. Mr MULHERIN: The government’s response to these concerns is that it would conduct detailed consultation after the bill had been passed. With all due respect, that is not consultation; that is PR. There is a well-known maxim amongst carpenters to measure twice and cut once. Legislators would do well to adapt the maxim when it comes to consultation. If you consult properly you only need to legislate once. If you fail to consult we might very well be back here in a year or two with new amendments to address community concerns. More than two months have elapsed since the committee report was completed. It seems to me that this time could have been more wisely used for a longer consultation period. I conclude where I started: this side of the House supports measures to improve animal welfare, but we have significant concerns about this bill. We believe that on an issue that is extremely important to Indigenous communities around Queensland consultation needs to occur prior to legislation. On these grounds we oppose the bill. Pursuant to standing order 141, I move— That the bill be referred back to the Agriculture, Resources and Environmental Committee to undertake full and proper consultation and report back to the House by no earlier than 1 February 2013. Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (4.08 pm): I rise to support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, which seeks to refer the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 back to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee for meaningful consultation. It is a committee that I am a member of; indeed, I am the deputy chair of the committee. The time allocated to the AREC to review, consult and report on the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 has been woeful to say the least. As was the case with the Environmental Protection (Greentape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill and as was the case with the Mines Legislation (Streamlining) Amendment Bill, the lack of consultation was evident in this case and is particularly insulting in this regard. Introduced into the chamber on 19 June and referred to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee to report back on 2 July, there was less than two weeks for the committee to engage relevant stakeholders and seek their feedback. On this occasion, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated, the Labor opposition will be opposing this bill and calling on the House to refer the bill back to the committee for meaningful consultation. I note that, in his address, the minister noted that the committee had recommended that the bill be passed. Of course, it would recommend that, given that so many government members sit on that committee. However, I also note that there were two statements of reservation in relation to the report and both of those statements of reservation requested that the bill go back for further and meaningful consultation. For those in the House who are interested, the type of inquiry that the committee conducted was particular and peculiar, to say the least. I quote from the report, which I think gives a level of insight in terms of the committee’s process. It states— Given the short timeframe provided to examine the Bill and to prepare a report to Parliament (nine full days), and given the subject matter of the Bill and the particular difficulties of engaging effectively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders located in remote communities and across the state, the committee resolved not to attempt a public submission process for the inquiry. Therefore, this inquiry did not take public submissions. The report continues, ‘In lieu of the public submission process’— Mr Rickuss: Take it up with the CLA. Ms TRAD: I would like to take it up with the chair of the AREC, who could not stand up to his government even if he was paid for it. In fact, he is paid for it. The chair of the AREC is, in fact, paid to consult and scrutinise legislation, but he is pocketing money for a job that he does not do. I will continue to quote from the report, which is signed by the chair of the AREC— In lieu of a public submission process, the committee hosted a roundtable discussion at Parliament House with a group of key stakeholders identified by the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs (DATSIMA). 12 Sep 2012 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1849

That round table discussion involved a number of people who had phoned in and they could not hear the proceedings. They could not effectively contribute to the round table discussion. Of the Indigenous leaders who attended the round table discussion held in this chamber, each one of them said they had less than one week’s notice to attend the round table hearing on significant law changes that would change their lives and their livelihoods. They both recommended that the bill be referred back to communities for genuine and meaningful conversation. A letter from the TSRA states— The TSRA is of the view that meaningful consultation has not been undertaken in the development of this proposed Bill. In addition, the timeframes that have been set for the Inquiry into the proposed Bill, including the submission of comments, are not adequate to engage in meaningful consultation with the Traditional Owners—people who are potentially directly affected if the Bill results in requirements to change our traditional practices—and organisations that represent these groups. The letter further states— ... given the limited time available and the lack of consultation with Traditional Owners on what this piece of legislation will mean for us we are not in a position to provide the level of feedback that we think is necessary. We would welcome a decision to extend the timeframe for the provision of submissions or a decision to engage in more meaningful consultation with Traditional Owners potentially affected by this Bill to ensure the implications are rightfully considered, before the Bill is legislated. That is not a difficult ask. That is not a big ask from traditional owners who have been the custodians of this land and the custodians of the native flora and fauna of this land. It is not a big ask for them to say, ‘Give us a bit more time to engage in the consultation around these new laws, give us a bit more time to give you decent feedback, give us an opportunity to have a say.’ That is not a big ask at all. The bill introduced into the House fundamentally alters the way in which traditional owners can hunt and practise custom as they have done for thousands of years. Mr Rickuss: Can’t you read? Ms TRAD: I will take that interjection, because what the whitefellas in this chamber are saying is completely different from what the traditional owners said at the round table— Mr ELMES: I rise to a point of order. She knows exactly what the point of order is. Given the remarks that were made yesterday in the parliament by the Leader of the House that he was asked to withdraw, I think it only fair that the member for South Brisbane withdraws those remarks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Watts): Order! I ask the member to withdraw. Ms TRAD: I withdraw that remark. Given the comments coming from Caucasian members of this chamber— Mr EMERSON: I rise to a point of order. Ms TRAD:—and maybe I will reiterate— Mrs Miller: It is a matter of fact. Mr ELMES: The member should settle down. The inference from the member for South Brisbane was only changed slightly. She certainly did not withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Have you taken personal offence at the comment? Mr ELMES: On behalf of everyone in the chamber I have, yes. Opposition members: No. Mr ELMES: I have, in that case. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You have taken personal offence at the comment? Mr ELMES: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to withdraw. Ms TRAD: I withdraw the comment in relation to the Caucasian members of the chamber. Do the people opposite, those who sit on the government benches, know the importance of this bill? I think they do. Do they understand how members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community feel about the lack of consultation? I think they do. It is a longstanding and acknowledged point in this House and across governance everywhere in Australia. In fact, the importance of consulting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and representative bodies on proposed legislation was noted by the former Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, as recorded in that committee’s report. I know that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is new to this House, as I am. I also know that he is a man of the law and would well understand the legal precedent set by the iconic High Court case, Mabo v Queensland. I am not referring simply to native title here but also to the acknowledgement in the highest court of our nation that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the traditional owners of this land and, as such, are entitled to be engaged in the law making of this state as it affects them and their way of life. 1850 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

What is the solution that was offered by the chair of the AREC? He decided to broker a deal with the minister and the department. He said, ‘Let’s just get around this by extending the full implementation of the bill. Why don’t we give them a full 12 months to implement the bill, but in that time we will go out and tell them about the bill.’ I quote from the AERC report on the unorthodox practice of consulting after a bill is passed in this House. It states— Consultation on a bill after its introduction into Parliament is unusual, even when there may be strong support for the policy the Bill seeks to give effect to. The Local Government Association of Queensland stated— We are very concerned about the lack of consultation associated with the bill and the apparent need for the state government to expedite the legislation and usurp what are usual practices. We realise that this was part of the 100-day action plan that the government is pursuing, but we also need to point out that the LNP government does have a policy of properly empowering local government and giving people a real say on the future direction of their community ... We do not think that expediting the parliamentary committee process in this way and this legislation honours that commitment. This particular bill is based on a particular policy that was made during the state election campaign earlier this year. It was in response to a story that was aired on the 7.30 program in March. This media story depicted graphic footage of the hunting and slaughter of a dugong and turtle respectively and both of which are protected species. The footage used in the 7.30 program, taken covertly, has assumed a correlation—and in my opinion an incorrect correlation—with the widespread traditional hunting and cultural activities practised by Queensland’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The incorrect and—from the perspective of some traditional owners—offensive correlation of these actions of a few with the activities of the majority cannot be the media’s responsibility alone. In an election atmosphere, where the Liberal National Party was making extravagant election commitments such as that permanent public servant jobs would be safe or that there would be no cuts to front-line jobs or that there would be no privatisation of public assets without a prior mandate from the electorate or that there would be no changes to the Surrogacy Act to embed in law discrimination, the LNP also promised, in a knee-jerk way, that they would no longer exempt Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders undertaking traditional hunting and fishing from penalty under the Animal Care and Protection Act. This media-driven policy is ill thought out and I harbour serious concerns as to its efficacy and its impact on traditional customs and practices, specifically native title generally. In achieving its stated policy objective, the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill also seeks to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities (Justice, Land and Other Matters) Act 1984, the Aurukun and Mornington Shire Leases Act 1967 and the Nature Conservation Act 1992. The conservation of protected species is an important responsibility of any modern legislature but particularly the Queensland legislature. As recently reported in the State of the Environment: Queensland 2011 report, tabled by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection on 10 September—Monday this week—Queensland has the greatest levels of biodiversity in Australia. With 85 per cent of our nation’s native mammals, 72 per cent of Australia’s native birds and more than half of the nation’s native reptile and frog species, Queensland is definitely an ecologically diverse and special place. I believe we must remain committed to and vigilant regarding the protection and conservation of all the necessary elements that support biodiversity in Queensland. Given this, I was particularly pleased with the data released by the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection on National Threatened Species Day, which showed a doubling of the population of the northern hairy-nosed wombats in Epping Forest National Park, near Emerald. This healthy increase in the number of critically endangered hairy-nosed wombats is the result of a Labor government and a Labor environment minister having decided 10 years ago to reserve Epping Forest National Park for this species’ protection and conservation. Unfortunately, in somewhat bad taste, the minister also decided to announce on National Threatened Species Day the reintroduction of damage mitigation permits for the purpose of culling flying foxes. Flying foxes represent a critical part of Queensland’s ecosystem and indeed they are a threatened species. Mr ELMES: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I ask you to rule on relevance. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Animal Care and Protection Act—absolutely nothing at all. Ms TRAD: Yes, it does—with the Nature Conservation Act it does. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Watts): Excuse me. I will ask the member for South Brisbane to please talk to the amendment. Ms TRAD: I will. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. But let us not for one moment believe that this bill has anything to do with protecting Queensland’s native species and let us not think for one minute that this government is committed to a comprehensive approach to protecting threatened native species. It is important to be clear about the greatest threats facing Queensland’s dugong and turtles. The sad truth of the matter is that both dugong and turtle populations have declined. Turtle populations are a particular cause for concern. But traditional hunting is at most a very small contributing factor to these 12 Sep 2012 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1851 declines. Indigenous Queenslanders have been hunting turtles and dugong in a sustainable manner for thousands of years. Therefore we should direct the majority of our efforts, I believe, to protect these animals from the significant threats they face. Those threats include the consumption of turtle eggs and hatchling turtles by goannas and introduced feral species; namely, feral pigs and dogs. Adult turtles are at risk of capture in trawler nets and drowning because of capture in floating ghost nets, many of which originate from Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. That is why I am pleased with the recent efforts of the federal environment minister to turn the Abel Tasman away from Australia’s fishing zone. Additionally, there is the threat of harmful pollutants from agricultural or industrial practices which run off into waterways and into our oceans, decreasing the quality of marine habitat for both turtles and dugong. I am particularly proud that Labor started to address this problem through the Great Barrier Reef Protection Amendment Bill 2009 and the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, both of which have begun showing signs of success and both of which were vehemently opposed by those opposite. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for South Brisbane, you were asked to be relevant to the amendment, which was to refer this bill back to the committee. Could you please keep your comments to referring it back to the committee? Ms TRAD: As I briefly touched upon earlier, the issue of consultation is particularly important to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is a principle that has been enshrined in the practice of government since Mabo v Queensland overturned terra nullius in this country. Indigenous communities harbour deep respect for animals, and their hunting practices are steeped in tradition and cultural significance. The overwhelming majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Queenslanders are just as concerned with limiting the suffering of turtles and dugong as many other Queenslanders are. That is why they want to have a say. Not only does this bill seek to limit customary hunting and slaughtering of traditional game; but the bill goes further to limit the consumption of the catch to the community—the community government or the Indigenous regional council area in which the animal was caught. This has been explained as a mechanism to discourage the sale of turtle or dugong meat. Efforts must certainly be taken to eliminate any black market in turtle or dugong meat. However, both the federal Native Title Act and Queensland’s Nature Conservation Act 1992 already prohibit the commercial trade of protected wildlife which includes dugong and turtles. It seems to me that these amendments are not necessary—you cannot make an already illegal practice even more illegal. What this does is increase red tape, not decrease red tape. Is it okay to increase red tape for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people without consulting them? Is it okay to increase red tape for that group of people without consulting them? It seems to me that this is unnecessary. The consultation issue that was raised during the round table is a deeply significant issue to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, as I referred to in the earlier statements I made. The ask here is not to vote against the bill but to refer the bill, refer these changes to the law, back to the people who will be affected by these changes to the law. You cannot talk about the hunting of dugong and turtle without talking about native title, without talking about traditional customs, without actually talking about the things that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the length and breadth of this state. It is important to note that Indigenous representatives from North Stradbroke Island came across to the round table discussion to actually articulate how these changes to the law would affect the initiation rights of their young children—how men would be unable to assist their sons through their initiation processes into adulthood if these changes became law. Yet these people were not allowed to put in a submission, to be fully consulted upon, in relation to these changes to the law. This is outrageous. This is further colonisation of the traditional owners of this country without actually consulting them. It is an outrage. For that reason we will be opposing the bill. (Time expired) Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (4.29 pm): I rise to speak to this amendment that is not an amendment. We will be opposing this amendment now that it is being dealt with, through the chair, on the basis that you accepted this late amendment before the House. This amendment highlights the laziness, the incompetence, the malaise and general downright stupidity of members opposite in absolutely flouting the standing orders of this parliament. Standing order 93 provides that amendments must be provided in writing to the Clerk. No-one has seen this amendment to the House and certainly the Clerk has not seen this amendment. We are debating an amendment that is not an amendment. The member for South Brisbane has been here for five minutes and gets it all wrong and shows her incompetence every time she jumps up. She has become ‘jump up Jackie’. The person who should know better—the guy who has been asleep for the last 10 years—has moved this motion when he knows his own Manager of Opposition Business knows this amendment should not have been accepted before the House. Quite clearly, it flies in the face of the normal parliamentary process—something these members should know about if they are to provide a credible opposition. That is what the people of Queensland would like—a credible opposition. What they have is a bunch of incompetents who do not know the proper procedure for dealing with amendments in this House. 1852 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

In relation to the logistics of the amendment and the appropriateness of it, putting this before the House shows their ignorance of the portfolio committee system. The member for South Brisbane should have been well aware that this bill has been circulated and has been dealt with in an appropriate way. There has been consultation. Because the member for South Brisbane, in throwing a little tantrum, does not like the portfolio committee deliberations and the input from groups that considered this very carefully in terms of the long-term future of those threatened species, she has again displayed a complete ignorance of the parliamentary system. This amendment will be opposed by the government. It is a stupid amendment that should not have been put before the House, as the Manager of Opposition Business knows. He may well have to cross the floor and vote with us because he knows how ridiculous the amendment is. It was moved without the Manager of Opposition Business’s knowledge that this was going to go forward. It was put forward by the shadow minister and member for Mackay, who should know better. Unfortunately, he has not dealt with these matters because as a former minister in the Labor government, which allowed these practices to go forward over many years, he was asleep at the wheel. All his lackeys did the work for him, and that is why he did not realise the proper procedure to bring these matters before the parliament. Mr Mulherin: We sought advice from the Clerk’s office. This advice was given that it was good under standing order 141. It is relevant. There has been a lack of consultation. Mr STEVENS: This amendment is a load of rubbish. It has been before the committee. It is very much a stunt. Ms Trad: No, it is not. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Watts): Order! Those on my left will cease interjecting. Mr STEVENS: It is very much a stunt from the member for South Brisbane to further her career, her interests and her supposed—I cannot say the ‘j’ word, but whatever word it is that she is on to get the Leader of the Opposition’s job. For whatever reason she is doing these stupid stunts, it really should stop in the interests of the people of South Brisbane and in the interests of the people of Queensland who want a decent opposition who know the right structures and the right parliamentary procedures. The committee has dealt with this matter very well, and we will be opposing this amendment that should not be accepted. Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. AYES, 9—Byrne, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott NOES, 74—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Douglas, Dowling, Driscoll, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Hopper, Johnson, Judge, Kaye, Kempton, King, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Menkens, Smith Resolved in the negative. Hon. GW ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Premier) (4.40 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. It is a privilege in this my third term to be in government and to be able to give effect to some of the burning issues which I saw ignored for so long under the previous Labor government. Some members who have been around here for longer than a couple of weeks will remember the repeated calls I made over the years for the cruel treatment of turtles and dugong to be stopped and for the commercial killing of these animals to be eliminated. Let me make it very clear from the outset that I am not trying to curtail traditional hunting by Indigenous people which is permitted under native title. This bill supports traditional hunting practices but seeks to ensure they are carried out as humanely as possible and that the product of that hunting is used for local people, for their community or for ceremonial use. We want to see an end to cruelty to turtles and dugong without limiting native title hunting rights. We also want to end the black market trade which has seen quantities of turtle and dugong meat shipped from the Torres Strait to Cairns and other mainland households. I understand that the speed with which we are making these changes is faster than some people like, but this is not a new issue. The fact that it is not a new issue is why we feel comfortable in moving quickly on it. I acknowledge the desire of some Torres Strait Islanders for there to be longer and wider consultation about the bill. Can I say that I was in the Torres Strait some weeks ago speaking to various members of councils and mayors and so forth in the Torres Strait and they gave that message to me very clearly. A government member: And you’re going back up again. Mr ELMES: And I am going back up again. My department has conducted consultation with Indigenous communities and groups up and down the coast and in the Torres Strait since the bill was introduced. From my own point of view, I have made a number of trips to various communities within the cape and I will be doing so again next week. My promise to each and every mayor and council throughout the cape is that I will continue to consult with them personally on this particular matter. 12 Sep 2012 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1853

My assistant minister, the member for Cook, and I have both made separate trips to the Torres Strait to meet with traditional owners and elected leaders to hear their points of view on the bill and its likely impact on their communities. Leaders of the Kaurareg traditional owners in the Torres Strait expressed to me their own regret that many young Indigenous people were not being taught traditional hunting of turtles and dugong. I commend the traditional owners who have taken it upon themselves to monitor and patrol sea country to ensure turtle and dugong hunting is not abused. The consultation we have undertaken has resulted in a doubling of the proposed amnesty period from six to 12 months after the bill is passed before enforcement is instigated. We will also undertake ongoing education and consultation—personally by me and my department—during that period. The consultation has also resulted in there being no change in the way turtles and dugong can be transported and consumed for family and ceremonial occasions. The member for Cook will also continue to work with cape and Torres Strait communities to ensure the intent of the legislation is realised and its provisions are implemented. It is in no-one’s interest for turtles and dugong to be hunted to extinction. Native title hunting rights are in place to allow traditional hunting to be undertaken as part of a traditional lifestyle and diet. It was never intended that native title be used as a ruse for commercial hunting of turtles and dugong, even if not on a large scale. I believe Indigenous leaders when they tell me that the transportation of dugong and turtle meat to traditional owners and family members outside of their communities is part of traditional custom and is important to maintain cultural identity and links amongst Indigenous people. Some Indigenous communities already have community plans which include limits and restrictions on the transportation of turtles and dugong. The cruelty inflicted on turtles and dugong which I have railed against in this place on a number of occasions is inhumane and intolerable in a civilised society. All people—no matter what their cultural heritage—should not inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on animals, regardless of where the animals are and where the animals live. This bill is made necessary to deal with the rogue element, and there are rogues in every community. I wish there were not, but there are and we must deal with the consequences of their regrettable actions. The bill does not diminish the entitlement of traditional owners, the traditional inhabitants, to hunt for non-commercial use under the Native Title Act 1993. This bill is there to ensure that community standards for animal welfare are observed. Currently, there is a loophole in the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 which provides an exemption for traditional hunting which, unfortunately, some people have exploited for inappropriate killing of dugong and turtles. The bill before the House removes that exemption and makes it illegal for anyone and everyone to mutilate, torture or unnecessarily prolong the death of an animal. This government’s concern is to ensure the sustainable take—and I mean the sustainable take— of turtle and dugong species, while preserving the rights under native title of Indigenous people to pursue traditional hunting practices. The current take of dugong and some species of turtle is unsustainable. I have spoken to people and I have seen more video evidence than I ever wanted to see on this subject in terms of some of the unsustainable take, particularly of dugong species in North Queensland. All of that makes this bill a very important piece of legislation. While this bill seeks to do away with cruelty, individual communities have to do more to ensure that the take is sustainable for future generations of Indigenous people. This is an eminently fair and just position. It preserves the rights of those members of traditional subsistence communities, traditional inhabitants, to hunt using traditional methods and it ensures the safety and humane treatment of our precious dugong and turtles. Further, it gives us the ability to prevent rogues from using a loophole to hunt dugong and turtles commercially to extinction. It will not allow the barbaric custom of keeping a partially butchered animal alive to maintain, via the sequential further butchering of a live animal, a supply of fresh meat. It will not allow the commercial sale of eskies full of poached dugong and turtle meat. Further, I will be urging the mayors of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils to support the great work of the Minister for Agriculture and his departmental officers in eliminating the rogue poaching element within their communities as well as engaging in the related education program. This second aspect recognises the need for an education campaign—for which I and my department will be responsible—to raise awareness of just what the effect of these legislative changes are so that the traditional communities, the traditional inhabitants, are reassured and understand their obligations. I would like to place on record my thanks to members of the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee for their consideration of the bill and for the advice they have provided. In conclusion, I want to pay special tribute to two people who have campaigned even longer and harder than I have to see this legislation come before this House. To Colin Riddell, better known as ‘Colin Who Cares’, this bill is a reward for the tireless work which he has done over a very long period now and continues to do. The second person I wish to acknowledge is Bob Irwin. Bob needs no introduction as he is already famous for a lifetime of caring for the environment and for all of the creatures that inhabit it. He, too, has lent his considerable public weight and profile to the cause of dugong and turtles for he, 1854 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012 too, lives the cause. It is people with great heart and genuine soul like ‘Colin Who Cares’ and Bob Irwin who give voice and action to caring for our vulnerable and mostly trusting and defenceless wildlife. In doing so, they make our society better than it might otherwise be. I will be voting for this bill on their behalf and on behalf of the constituents I represent. I commend the bill to the House, and I encourage all members to join me in supporting its passage. Mr KEMPTON (Cook—LNP) (4.51 pm): The Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is not intended to restrict or remove the rights of any native title holder in the exercise of their native title rights and interests in respect of the hunting of turtle and dugong. The amendments will balance such rights against the community expectation that all animals will be protected from cruel acts and omissions. Native title rights to hunt, although not yet clearly defined, have been the subject of much judicial decision and are enshrined in the Native Title Act 1993, which is of course federal legislation. It is my view that these amendments will, in fact, afford greater protection of the rights and interests of native title holders by providing clarity of definition of those traditional practices which will not fall foul of this legislation. The amendments will remove the current exemption from the Animal Care and Protection Act which provides a defence for all acts and omissions undertaken by persons claiming to be exercising native title rights to hunt irrespective of the impact on the animal concerned. In order to take a turtle or dugong under the proposed amendments without offence there are several prerequisites. Firstly, the person must hold native title rights and interests. Secondly, the person must be exercising those rights and interests in an area in which they hold native title; residence will not suffice. Thirdly, the act or omission must not be cruel in that it must not offend the Animal Care and Protection Act. This raises the issue of cruelty. It is my view that there is a range of behaviours in relation to the dispatch of a turtle or dugong. On the one hand, we have animals dispatched according to traditional lore, L-O-R-E, and custom as practised for thousands of years which, on the face of it and as described to me by traditional owners, is not a cruel method of dispatch and will not offend the act. On the other hand, we have the kind of unacceptable and despicable actions that we saw depicted on the ABC’s 7.30 which are, in any measure, acts of gross cruelty without any regard whatsoever for the animal. I believe that the proposed amendments will draw a divide somewhere in between—a divide that will define which acts and omissions will fall to the left of the line and will not offend the act and those which are unacceptable and will clearly result in prosecution. Where this line will lie will be the subject of discussions and consultation during the ensuing 12-month period of grace. It is anticipated that proper traditional practices will be identified and if adhered to will avoid prosecution. The issue of what constitutes ‘cruel’ will be a matter of finding that balance. What is cruel in the eyes of a traditional hunter in the Torres Strait may well be at odds with the view of a Brisbanite witnessing the killing of a turtle on a beach of a remote Torres Strait island by whatever means. I am confident that the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, when passed into law, will afford the proper mechanism to achieve this balance. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. AC POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection) (4.54 pm): I, too, am pleased to add my support to these legislative amendments, which will protect Queensland’s iconic dugong and marine turtles. At the outset, I also acknowledge the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for his leadership in seeing this bill brought into the House. I thank him for doing that and for implementing one of the election commitments that I was instrumental in preparing in the lead-up to the March election. I also acknowledge one of the other speakers in the member for Noosa, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs who, as the former shadow minister for the environment, made every effort to put this on the agenda and ensure that it came to the House should the LNP become—and subsequently the LNP was—successful in forming government. Like him, I would also like to acknowledge the roles of a range of campaigners who have fought tirelessly for this bill. Mr Rickuss: So it didn’t just start? Mr POWELL: It did not just start. This has been going on for some time, and I will discuss that a bit more in a moment. I mention Colin Riddell and Bob Irwin, as mentioned by the member for Noosa. Also, there are many on the conservation side of the fence who have been very aware of these issues for some time and have been proactively working with Indigenous communities to establish the kind of practices that we will continue to roll out as we implement this legislation. I, too, want to put on the record, as did the member for Cook, that this in no way removes the native title right of traditional owners to hunt dugong and sea turtle for non-commercial use. In no way does it do that. Anyone who is saying to the contrary is spreading fear and rumour amongst the communities on the cape and in the Torres Strait. While I recognise that traditional owners have hunting rights for non-commercial use, for too long Labor—those opposite—have failed to address animal welfare issues despite repeated and urgent calls for action. These amendments will help ensure that these animals are not subject to unnecessary or unreasonable pain and suffering. 12 Sep 2012 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1855

Dugong and turtles are protected species under the Nature Conservation Act and it is important that amendments are made to that legislation as well as to the Animal Care and Protection Act to ensure that we will have a consistent and effective protection regime. Officers from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection have been closely involved in reviewing the amendments and have endorsed the changes involving the Nature Conservation Act. The changes will remove the current exemption for traditional hunters and make it illegal for anyone—anyone—to wound, mutilate, torture or unnecessarily prolong the death of an animal. It is also important to point out the original and full intent of the LNP election commitment around the protection of dugong and turtles. Whilst these legislative amendments are a key and core part of that election commitment, let me read what we also committed to. This document states that we would— Progressively expand the successful permit and licensing system developed in the Northern Peninsula Area of Cape York into all key habitats, with the guidance of traditional owners and Indigenous organisations. And that we would— Enforce the law when it comes to the illegal trade in dugongs and turtle meat and products. Anyone who somehow thinks that this legislation has come out of the blue, out of nowhere, need only refer to that LNP state election promise and to the detail it entails. I suspect that, again, it is a case of people choosing to cherry pick aspects of a policy rather than reading the complete document. As I have said, it is important to recognise the knowledge and experience of Indigenous communities and the role they play in managing and conserving wildlife including turtles and dugong. Indigenous communities have made a significant contribution in this regard. That is why we will work with them to achieve long-term conservation outcomes. This will be achieved in part through our expanded Indigenous rangers program. Over the coming year we will be working with Indigenous communities to further develop and implement sustainable harvesting and stronger conservation management practices for dugong and turtles across the state. This will take place as we roll out Queensland land and sea rangers into existing organisations such as land councils, local government authorities and community based groups, drawing on the involvement of these rangers and the resource management groups in the area. Just to be clear, our commitment also was to expand the number of Queensland land and sea rangers by a total of 40—30 to head to North Queensland and the cape and 10 to Western Queensland. I am pleased to report that, as part of our election commitment, we will see the rollout of the first 10 on the cape in the very near future. Working together with Indigenous people through negotiated agreements such as these builds relationships and empowers communities. After these plans are finalised, my department and other agencies will be able to more effectively take compliance action, in partnership with the relevant community, when poaching or other unlawful activity is reported. Finally, I take the opportunity to reinforce this government’s commitment to cracking down on illegal dugong and turtle trade. I said it this morning during my ministerial statement and I say it again now: where an industry or an individual is doing the wrong thing under the Environmental Protection Act or, in this case, the Nature Conservation Act, my department will act. Let this serve as a reminder that all Queenslanders have a role in protecting these iconic creatures. This government will be tough on those people who hunt or trade illegally. I commend the bill to the House. Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (5.01 pm): I rise to speak in the debate of the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This is an important bill. I think that has been highlighted by the fact that not only has the Minister for Agriculture spoken to the bill but also Minister Elmes and Minister Powell have spoken to the bill. That is the importance we on this side of the House place on this bill. We have no intention to remove the rights of native title holders to hunt dugong and turtles. That is not what this bill is about. This bill is about cruelty, not about removing rights. To say that it is about removing rights is to spread rumour and innuendo. This bill is purely about cruelty. Unfortunately, as we have seen before and as has been stated here in the House, there will always be a rogue element. I have seen turtles being killed with a besser block. It is very unsavoury to see a poor old sea turtle being killed with a besser block, and that is the sort of thing we will be preventing. That was never the traditional way. I am sure the shadow minister will accept that killing a turtle with a besser block is not the traditional way. I acknowledge that turtles, being reptiles, have a relatively small brain and are very hard to kill. I also acknowledge that dugong have a relatively small brain that is encased in bone and cartilage and are also very hard to kill. But they can be killed appropriately, even with native instruments. This bill is about killing the animals appropriately so that the community can accept it. Even the Indigenous people from the Torres Strait and the mainland do not condone cruelty. Mr Mulherin: This is putting the cart before the horse. 1856 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

Mr RICKUSS: I take that interjection. This has gone on for ages. To say that there was no consultation is completely untrue. There was consultation. This proposal had been highlighted and was part of the election campaign. As Minister Powell just pointed out, it was part of the LNP’s campaign. Mr Mulherin interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Miss Barton): Order! Deputy Leader of the Opposition, your interjections are incessant, the member is not taking them and I cannot hear him speak. Please keep your interjections to a minimum. Mr RICKUSS: This will actually give Indigenous communities greater certainty. They do not want the animals treated cruelly, overhunted or poorly managed. Mr Cox interjected. Mr RICKUSS: That is right: there is no intention to remove the rights of native title holders to hunt turtles and dugong. This bill will give them greater certainty. The 12-month grace period, which was recommended in the committee report, is really important. I am sure that Minister Elmes and his department will do a good job of consulting on that. There is nothing in this bill about stopping hunting. The member for Mackay mentioned that we were going to stop hunting. That is definitely not part of this legislation. Then the member for South Brisbane talked about goannas eating turtle eggs. Hello! That is nature. How are we going to stop that? That has been going on for thousands of years, I am sure. This bill in no way takes away the hunting rights of native title holders, but they will no longer have carte blanche. The relevant policy document released before the election states— The LNP will remove the current exemption for traditional hunters from the law that makes it illegal for anyone to wound, mutilate, torture or unnecessarily prolong the death of an animal ... That is what we are talking about. We have acted to bring about a situation that is very similar to that enacted in Northern Territory legislation. That legislation has been in place for aeons, and the traditional hunters in the Northern Territory have not felt that their native title rights have been taken away or that they are being picked on by their government, because they have not been. There is no intention to remove the rights of native title holders when hunting turtles and dugong. I draw an analogy with legal cockfighting in England and the United States. I had an uncle who, before the war, kept roosters to participate in legal cockfighting. Some South-East Asian communities still have illegal cockfighting. We are seeking to stop that sort of thing because it is cruel. The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs referred to the 12- month education program that will be undertaken. We want the community to understand their rights and to understand that they cannot overhunt and they cannot sell the meat; it is to be consumed in accordance with traditional custom. There will be a limit on transportation. They will not be allowed to mutilate or torture the animals. This bill will ensure the turtle and dugong populations remain sustainable. There is no argument that dugong and turtles are important dietary protein for Torres Strait Islanders in particular as well as some of the Indigenous people on the mainland, but hunting has to be managed sustainably or else they will not be an important part of their diet because they will no longer exist. This is a good piece of legislation. The proposals it contains were promised in the 100-day action plan. The member for South Brisbane was rabbiting on about the lack of consultation and the time frames. Those opposite do not understand the process. The CLA, of which three members of the opposition are a part, gave us the referral and set down the time frame for report. Members of the portfolio committee do not set the time lines; the CLA sets the time lines—and the opposition has equal representation on that committee. Did they bring the matter back to the House and complain about it? No, it was all agreed and that is what we have done. We have followed the guidelines of the parliamentary committee system. The parliamentary committee system is about a committee looking at the legislation that is presented to it and doing a good job of examining that legislation and improving on it. I think this committee has done a good job of that. I am sure the minister acknowledges that. He acknowledges that by the fact that he has taken on board a lot of the recommendations that were made. I thank the minister for taking on board those recommendations. They were extremely important recommendations. Recommendation 3 states— The committee recommends that the Minister seeks the support of the House for the committee to review the legislation twelve months after its commencement. The minister has highlighted the fact—and this is a good point—that there is no need to do that, because it is going to be reviewed in 12 months time. Recommendation 4 states— The committee notes that the wording in proposed section 41A(2) in clause 10 is consistent with the Act but has concerns, and recommends that the proposed section be amended if possible to ensure that clear wording is substituted and clear examples of permissible hunting methods are included. 12 Sep 2012 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1857

That has been clarified as well, which is important. This bill has been improved by it going through the committee system. We have extended the grace period from six months to 12 months so that the legislation could be worked through properly. The report states— Given the work required, the committee believes that the grace period should be extended to twelve months. That recommendation has been accepted by the minister. This is what good committee work is about. It is not about harping on about the process after the process has finished. It is about getting involved in the committee process, making sure it works and making improvements to the bill. That is what this committee has done. I would like to thank the members of the committee who worked extremely hard on this bill. I would like to thank the staff who also worked extremely hard on this bill. The reporting time was short, but we managed it and we managed it well. We came up with some good recommendations. I support the bill. Mr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) (5.11 pm): It is with some sense of sadness that I rise to speak to the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill today because of the stunt that we saw in this parliament perpetrated by the Labor Party. It is a disgrace that this parliament is abused in such a way for base political purposes—when parliamentary procedure, which is well established within our standing orders and within our processes, is ignored for a stunt by the Labor Party highlighting a particular view and garnering an attitude that is of neither benefit to the debate nor benefit to the issues that are contained within this bill. At the outset, let me be clear: when this parliament considers matters that impact upon our Indigenous communities, we must do so in a delicate way. Unfortunately, as this parliament is assembled, we do not have any Indigenous members. As a result, we are required to be that much more delicate and considerate in the way in which we engage in matters and not use this parliament and abuse the processes in the way in which we saw the Labor Party do today. It was absolutely disgraceful. As others who have spoken before me have said, the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is an important bill, because it brings about changes within the hunting of particularly dugong and turtles, which is the most contentious element within this bill. This bill proposes to amend several acts to achieve that objective whilst, and most importantly, establishing a balance between the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in maintaining their traditional and customary practices and animal welfare consideration. We have heard from others in the debate about hunting practices and processes that would not be acceptable or considered traditional. This bill ensures that a person who is authorised to deal with animals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition or Islander custom under the Nature Conservation Act is subject to the animal welfare obligations under the Animal Care and Protection Act. This bill is not about stopping customary practices. This bill is not saying to our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that they are cannot engage in those practices. We have heard from others quite eloquently and articulately the important elements that are contained within this bill and how this bill maintains those traditional roles. There has been much said about the time frame for consultation. When we passed changes to the legislative process in the 53rd Parliament we knew that, when legislation was introduced in the initial stages of a new parliament, there would not be the full period of consideration of bills by committees. That will happen with each new parliament. Those opposite, who were such an integral part of the development of the new committee system, now whinge and complain incessantly about that process yet at the time the committee system was introduced they said nothing about that issue, which will always be the case for any new parliament. It is not the length of time that is available for consideration, it is the work that is done in consideration. I have said this before in this House and I will say it again: if you want to get a job done, give it to a busy man. This committee worked hard in a limited time frame and delivered a good outcome. I wish to highlight the remarks of the chair, because the evidence of the great work that this committee did is shown in the fact that the minister and the government have taken on board the recommendations of the committee on how to improve this legislation. We are seeing a better bill before the House than was initially introduced. We have taken something good and made it better. That highlights the benefit of the committee process. It is a review. You do not necessarily need an extensive period in which to do a good job in reviewing legislation. At this point it is appropriate that I thank the committee staff, because we know that their input into this process was invaluable. I also wish to thank all of those who made contributions in whatever format to this legislation. I thank the chair for his leadership and the other members of this committee because, again, in a limited time frame, they were able to do what this parliament requires of each committee to do and that is to forensically analyse legislation, to identify any areas that need to be improved and to put forward recommendations without fear or favour. This bill is a great example of the parliament putting forward to the executive ways in which legislation can be improved and we have seen the minister adopt those recommendations. 1858 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

Without wanting to reveal that occurs within committee discussions, those opposite would portray the process as something other than what it really was. I say shame on them for the way in which they abuse this process. Shame on them for the way in which they have politicised what is, in fact, good legislation. A government member: Hypocrisy. Mr GIBSON: I take the interjection. It is hypocrisy of the highest order when we see the disgraceful stunt that was perpetrated in this parliament by members of the Australian Labor Party. We now have legislation that strikes the right balance. It will continue to bring about change and enable those traditional customary practices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be carried out in a manner that is appropriate and is of benefit to all. I commend the bill to the House. Mr COSTIGAN (Whitsunday—LNP) (5.18 pm): I rise in this House to make a short contribution to the debate and speak in support of the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. Firstly, I would like to place on record my thanks to my parliamentary colleagues on the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee, under the chairmanship of the member for Lockyer, for their work in relation to this bill. Like the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, I also commend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for his leadership on these legislative amendments. Furthermore, I would like to thank the parliamentary committee staff for their assistance and those people who briefed the committee and contributed their views at the round table meeting on 27 June 2012. Before I go any further, I remind honourable members that the principal purpose of this bill is to make sure that animal welfare obligations under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 apply to all dealings with animals under Aboriginal tradition or Torres Strait Islander custom. The bill is about achieving a balance between animal welfare and the hunting rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and, specifically, the hunting of sea turtles and dugong. It is worth reminding members that Queensland is the only state or territory within the Commonwealth with animal welfare legislation that expressly exempts from its application dealings with animals according to Aboriginal or Islander custom. Right now the laws are different in the Northern Territory and that is the place where I first learnt a thing or two about the traditional hunting of turtles; spending two weeks with the Tiwi Islanders as a teenager staying at Nguiu on Bathurst Island at the invitation of the Catholic Church. It is also up in the top end, in the territory, where I have an Aboriginal cousin and, from my observations over a period of time, the law in relation to such matters works quite well and I see no problem in that being replicated here in Queensland. The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs made some very valid points in his contribution to the debate. He referred to those hunting rogues that, in my words, do despicable things to our turtles and dugong. These legislative amendments put those rogues well and truly on notice. The minister also made the point that enforcement will not be straightaway. It is not going to happen tomorrow, it is not going to happen next week, it is not going to happen next month. It will only come after education—that is, bringing affected communities up to speed with the new law. We have heard the member for South Brisbane and the deputy chair of the aforementioned committee refer to the issue of native title. Some of my colleagues have countered some of the argument that the member for South Brisbane has put up here in this debate. In response to that let me say this: the Newman LNP government recognises the entitlement of traditional owners to hunt turtles and dugong for non-commercial use under the Native Title Act 1993. That is right. These amendments will not and do not extinguish native title rights to hunt, nor will they rescind any other hunting rights. Any suggestion that that is the case is pure folly. Given that is the case and the fact that the bill brings Queensland into line with other jurisdictions, I commend the bill to the House. Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—KAP) (5.23 pm): The Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 seeks to balance animal welfare with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander hunting rights. Once again we have a bill before the House on which there has been limited consultation with those most impacted by the outcomes. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups have widely condemned the lack of consultation that has gone into creating this bill. The real motivation for this bill comes from the bleeding heart animal liberationists who want us all to adhere to their way of thinking and become vegetarians, stop rodeos and campdrafts, ban live exports and allow cattle and livestock to roam free over plains while they live in their leafy, innercity suburbs sipping skinny soy lattes and planning the destruction of Australia’s billion dollar meat industry. This bill is a knee-jerk reaction that will impact on the practice of thousands of years of traditional culture. As noted by the LGAQ, failure to allow meaningful input from the communities most affected by this bill contradicts government policy to empower local government and give people a real say on the future direction of their community. In accordance with this government’s position on greater control being given to local government, the practice of tradition should be managed by local government authorities in Indigenous communities. 12 Sep 2012 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1859

Those affected by this legislation have not contributed to the bill and therefore the implications to Indigenous communities is unknown and unaddressed. The government has made cultural assumptions about Indigenous communities without giving communities an appropriate hearing and input into the legislation. The recommendation to pass this bill fails to hold the government accountable for its infringement on the democratic entitlements of Indigenous communities. The government intends to consult with the communities after the legislation has been passed. All that means is that government departments will tell Indigenous communities how they will now practice culturally significant customs regardless of how this legislation impairs the relevance of those customs. In other words, cultural practices that have significant spiritual, communal and inherited meaning will be made redundant by the inability to conduct those practices in culturally meaningful ways. I have worked with Indigenous people in Queensland Rail for over 20 years and during that time I have been a participant in many ceremonial meals of turtle and dugong. These meals have nearly always required the transportation of meat. It is unbelievable that the culture of sharing the prized possession of traditional food in these regions will be stopped. The cultural significance of sharing these sea animals with family cannot be underestimated and has received no attention by this government. This is just one of the cultural implications of this bill and only raised because of my personal experience. This is very similar to the issue of live exports. Members will remember the year that we were hit with high bank interest rates. It was the same year that we had an unusually large rainfall and a whopping big flood that affected contractors, subcontractors, truckies and landowners. In that year we were also hit with a massive cyclone. Just as we were getting out of it the Gillard government slams a live export ban on us because of a bit of live footage which spread panic across the federal government. It closed down a multimillion dollar industry and ruined the lives of people. This is the same situation. The LNP has seen bad footage in relation to traditional hunting and said, ‘We must do something about this. This is cruel and barbaric.’ This is a panicked, rushed decision just before the election, with a promise of 100 days, without consultation with Indigenous people. Many members got up and said that they consulted. There was no consultation at all, none whatsoever. I receive phone calls every day from Indigenous people as a result of this rushed decision without consultation. If there was consultation they would have gone to the Indigenous communities and had a look for themselves to see how they go about it. They would have talked to them about how this will affect them and how this is something they have been practising since time immemorial. But they saw footage and panicked, just like the Gillard government did with live exports. The government should not assume that its mandate provides the authority to circumvent the human rights of Indigenous people to practise culturally significant traditions. This legislation denies Indigenous people the opportunity to practise cultural traditions that have been in place since time immemorial. I cannot support this bill. A government member interjected. Mr KNUTH: Go and talk to them then. Mr COX (Thuringowa—LNP) (5.28 pm): Today I wish to comment on the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. The committee thanks those who briefed it and contributed their views at the round table meeting on 27 June 2012 or otherwise contributed through the inquiry. I thank the other committee members and the research staff, led by Rob Hansen. I also thank the minister, the Hon. John McVeigh, for introducing the bill, which fulfils another pre-election commitment that the LNP made to all Queenslanders. The Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 proposes amendments to several acts to ensure that animal welfare obligations under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 apply to dealings with animals under Aboriginal tradition or Torres Strait Islander customs. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs assisted the committee in its work. The committee was also assisted by representatives of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils, peak bodies and the RSPCA. During the 2012 election campaign, the LNP announced that, if elected, it would implement policies to protect precious wildlife from cruelty in the course of traditional hunting. That policy commitment was prompted by the airing of a story on the ABC’s 7.30, which showed graphic footage of Indigenous hunters killing a turtle and a dugong. It showed the turtle being butchered while still alive and the dugong being towed to its death behind a boat. However, we do note that only a minority of Indigenous hunters use these hunting practices and they are not widespread cultural practices. Following the airing of the footage, a number of viewers and animal welfare groups complained about those particular hunting practices on sea turtles and dugong. Currently there is an exemption in place for traditional hunters. Under the exemption, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders undertaking traditional hunting and fishing are not liability to a penalty if they are cruel to an animal. The Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 provides a number of exemptions from the cruelty offences provisions. These include cruelty associated with fishing, slaughter under religious faith and Aboriginal tradition or Islander custom. The Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation 1860 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

Amendment Bill 2012 proposes to remove exemptions for Aboriginal tradition and Islander custom. The repealing of this existing exemption will affect the hunting practices of not only turtle and dugong but all animals. That will bring Queensland in line with all other states. However, in considering these proposed amendments to the act, it is important that we get the balance right between allowing Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to maintain their cultural customs and introducing welfare standards. When introducing the bill, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, John McVeigh, stated— The government recognises the entitlement of traditional owners to hunt dugongs and turtles for non-commercial use under the Native Title Act 1993. The bill will not extinguish native title rights to hunt nor will it rescind any other hunting rights. Where I live in North Queensland, Indigenous people may use their hunting, gathering and fishing skills to feed themselves and their families. Traditional Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders have been regarded as the sole surviving representatives of hunters and gatherers in Oceania. I am sure that even the member for Everton, Tim Mander, realises Indigenous people do not do this as a sport. However, it is not just about having food sources available to them; it is also about maintaining traditional hunting, fishing and gathering practices and maintaining cultural customs for generations to come. I have enjoyed the committee process and our investigation of this bill, as we have been able to deal with a real issue. It is a real issue that affects locals in all our electorates. The bill attempts to balance Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander hunting rights and animal welfare. I support the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (5.33 pm): Tonight I am pleased to talk to the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. In standing to speak to the legislation, I commend the minister, the Hon. John McVeigh, for bringing the legislation to the House and delivering on yet another election commitment by the LNP government. This is a sensitive issue and the bill sets out to strike a balance. It is a balance between what ordinarily, on the surface, appears to be conflicting positions or conflicting issues—that is, the balance between traditional hunting and the cultural heritage of the traditional owners and community expectations from an animal welfare point of view. I am pleased to advise the House that they are actually coming at this from the same place. This is about the welfare of animals and the humane treatment of animals. No-one condones cruelty to animals. Therefore, both parties are coming to the same point, but from different directions. That is probably the only rider that you would put on it. I was able to meet with a number of traditional owners, Indigenous people, and talk on this very issue. They raised the point very strongly that they oppose cruelty. Like the rest of us, when they saw the television images they were devastated. It was wrong and it was inhumane. Certainly it did not reflect well on their traditional values, their traditional rites, their heritage and their belief in the way that they hunt and gather. It did not sit very well with them at all. I will refer to one comment that was made, although I will not verbal and I will not name the person. It was along the lines that they would like to dispense some of their own judicial processes on the perpetrators for bringing the people, their culture and their heritage into question. Certainly that is what is intended by this legislation. The balance we need to achieve must protect traditional cultural heritage and traditional values and keep that heritage alive for future generations. The bill will bring Queensland into line with that good practice, which is already in place around this country. It brings us into line with other states. I acknowledge and will quote the explanatory speech given by the minister. He said— Queensland is the only Australian jurisdiction with animal welfare legislation that expressly exempts from its application dealings with animals according to Aboriginal tradition or Islander custom. We are bringing our state into line with the rest of Australia. The minister also stated— However, no regulations were ever made under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 to impose conditions on how animals could be dealt with under tradition or custom. That throws up a new range of issues, which is that different regions and different communities go through different processes in the hunting regime. They catch, trap and hunt differently. While this legislation is fairly specific to the waters of North Queensland as it refers to the turtle and the dugong, it really does accentuate the issues that we are going to grapple with when we look at the finer detail down the line. The legislation is long overdue. The original act has been in place for a little over 10 years. There has been 10 years of opportunity to start to address these very significant cultural issues, but, sadly, they have not been addressed. This government seeks to amend that. As a number of other members have said, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people also are calling for this legislation. As I said in my opening statement, it is important. I believe this legislation will try to address some other areas that are important. As was touched on by those opposite and those on this side, the spiritual role that these animals play in traditional customs is very important. We also need to address the issue of sustainability, which is very important. In these modern times, even traditional hunting methods are becoming more effective. This is about making sure that we balance that, while understanding the 12 Sep 2012 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1861 importance of customs. One of the elders that I met with said that in the old days they would go out and catch a dugong and share it with the whole village, but nowadays the whole village can pretty much go out and get their own. Therefore, this is about balancing the traditional rights and cultural importances and making sure that we do not impinge on any of that. I will not go continue much further, because many members have already made significant contributions. However, I would remind the House that this is significant legislation. It has not been raced through. The foundation legislation has been around since 2001. It has taken 10 years for these amendments to come into this place, to bring us into line with other states. I commend the bill to the House. Mr KRAUSE (Beaudesert—LNP) (5.39 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. At the outset I thank the members of the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee for their contribution to the examination of this bill and the work that was undertaken through the committee and also in a public hearing conducted here in this chamber some weeks ago. In particular, the chairman, the member for Lockyer, and also the member for Thuringowa made strong contributions to the committee. This bill ensures that animal welfare obligations under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 apply to dealings with animals under Aboriginal tradition or Torres Strait Islander custom. This amendment will bring Queensland into line with other states, removing blanket exemptions for hunting and other activities which impact on the welfare of animals conducted pursuant to native title rights. In particular, those amendments have been brought before the House to address community concern about the alleged cruelty by traditional and customary hunters towards sea turtles and dugong. This bill will repeal section 8 of the act, which currently excludes acts done by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in accordance with Aboriginal tradition or Islander custom from the application of generally applicable animal welfare obligations under the act. Let us consider this provision for a moment. At present a specific section of the Queensland community has a different law applied to it in relation to animal care and protection legislation than applies for the broader Queensland community. This bill before us today will remove that distinction. Good policy and the principle of the rule of law require that laws have a general application—that is, they apply to all parts of the community equally so that no section of the community is particularly advantaged or disadvantaged by the implementation of legislation. As a member of the Queensland parliament representing not only the Beaudesert electorate but also the people of Queensland as a whole, I support measures which ensure laws apply generally to all sections of the community. It is simply not right that a person in my electorate belonging to a particular section of the community could be prosecuted under the act for the same actions or inaction for which a person in another part of Queensland could have immunity under the act. If there is going to be legislation making it unlawful to commit certain acts of cruelty against animals, this legislation must apply to all citizens. The provisions of the Animal Care and Protection Act demonstrate a will on the part of the Queensland community to criminalise certain behaviour. If there are parts of the community which consider that certain acts should be permissible then this place can repeal or amend the act. However, the same law should apply across the state and across communities. Can I touch briefly on the hypocrisy of those in the opposition and their fellow travellers in the Labor Party and the Greens in the federal parliament? We have heard in this place today various contributions to this debate, essentially arguing that cruelty to certain animals should be continued to give a free pass to members of certain communities to carry out such acts of cruelty. No doubt if we had members of the Greens in this place—and thank goodness we do not—they would argue for the same thing. But I remember the outcry from all of these people, the Labor Party and the Greens, when there was a story on Four Corners on the treatment of cattle exported to Indonesia. We saw cattle being horribly treated at an abattoir in Indonesia. It was on Four Corners. And what happened? Labor minister Joe Ludwig got a case of the butterflies and, true to form for the federal Gillard government, who regularly jumps and dances to the commanded tune of their Greens paymasters, Minister Ludwig suspended the live cattle trade immediately. How much consultation did Joe Ludwig undertake with graziers? Absolutely none. Mr Johnson: How many people did he break? Mr KRAUSE: I take the interjection from the member for Gregory. How much consultation did Joe Ludwig undertake with exporters and with abattoirs in Indonesia to work through these issues? None. No, he simply shut down the industry immediately and it cost Australian farmers millions, if not billions, of dollars. This decision of Joe Ludwig was an outrageous exercise in executive power which destroyed people’s livelihoods overnight and resulted in the evaporation of an export market into Indonesia. Mr Johnson: That the industry created itself. Mr KRAUSE: The live industry trade has still not recovered from this knee-jerk reaction. I again take the interjection from the member for Gregory. 1862 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

So let there be no doubt that all of the protests of the members of the opposition are simply politicking on the issue—they are hypocritically opposing a measure to prevent cruelty and mutilation to animals for base political reasons and they should be ashamed of themselves. Just as they were playing politics with the live cattle trade and Joe Ludwig’s panicked decision to suspend the trade, the Labor Party is playing politics with this issue. They are not interested in policy, only in politics. And, on an issue like this, they should be ashamed of themselves. I will say it again because it needs to be said: they should be ashamed of themselves. I want to mention one further thing about the bill before the House here today. It does not prevent all traditional hunting undertaken in accordance with native title customs. There is an exemption in the bill for acts that are done in a way that causes the animal in question as little pain as is reasonable. This is an important exemption which recognises the historical hunting and other customs which exist in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. This achieves a good balance between the legislative intent of the act, animal care and protection and the rights of those communities. It is right that we have those amendments and those exemptions in the bill. I also note the amendments brought to the House by the minister today as a result of the committee’s report including the minister’s announcement that there will be a 12-month grace period on the implementation of this bill and also the certainty given to the communities by the specification of certain acts which will be deemed not to cause as little pain as is reasonable. This gives some certainty to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in relation to the implementation of this bill. I also welcome the fact that there will be further consultation and information sessions and information dispersal going on in those communities after the passage of this bill through this place. This is a bill which brings Queensland into line with all other states. It brings about a general application of animal care and protection legislation in this state. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs MADDERN (Maryborough—LNP) (5.46 pm): I rise to speak on the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. As a consequence of media coverage of an unfortunate incident of cruelty, the LNP, during the campaign prior to the election in March 2012, gave a commitment as part of its 100-day plan to put forward legislation which would require that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the taking of native animals as part of their cultural heritage and custom do so in a fashion which causes the least amount of pain as possible to the animal. The bill was referred to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee on 19 June 2012. The bill proposes amendments to several acts to achieve this objective whilst also seeking to establish a balance between the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in maintaining their traditional and customary practices and considerations of animal welfare as expected by the rest of the community. The unacceptable activities are not considered to be widespread cultural practice but relate to only a minority of Indigenous hunters. Much has been made of the lack of time for consultation, both from those who participated in the brief inquiry held and from those who have made written submissions subsequently. The committee has also noted that the shortened time frame ‘set for the committee to examine the bill has resulted in less than ideal consultation opportunities for affected stakeholders’. As a member of the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee, I understand that some would think the criticism valid but I would point out that, even though the notice was short, many communities were able to contribute during the inquiry, and I thank them for their contribution. Submissions which were lodged outside of the nominated time frames have also been accepted and the contents noted and taken into consideration. I wish to thank my fellow committee members and the supporting staff for their assistance. Given this lack of an extensive consultation period, the committee in recommendation 3 of its tabled report asks that the minister seek the support of the House to review the legislation 12 months after its commencement, and I note the comments of the minister. This recommendation, together with recommendation 1, which seeks a 12-month grace period—rather than the six months as proposed— before enforcement of penalties, gives an appropriate time frame for consultation in the drafting of the regulations and guidelines underpinning the legislation. I note that the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs, who is to lead the communications strategy for this legislation, has already held departmental consultations in four locations across Queensland prior to the tabling of the legislation for the second reading. This legislation will remove the exemption that currently applies to Aboriginal and Islander communities when taking native animals such as dugong and turtle for the purpose of their cultural practices. The legislation will require Aboriginal and Islander communities’ compliance with the existing provisions of the act to ensure that the killing of animals is carried out in a humane way—something that has been required of the rest of the community for years in dealing with native and domestic animals. It is noted that the exemption which this bill will remove existed only in Queensland. No other state in Australia has granted this exemption. 12 Sep 2012 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1863

While the legislation appears quite simple, there are complexities around the definition of killing with the least amount of pain, particularly around the killing of dugong and turtle and what would be an appropriate form of killing under any given set of circumstances. In addition, there are difficulties around the definition of a community for the purposes of sharing the meat as part of Aboriginal culture and Islander practices. The Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee recognises that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are working collaboratively with governments, animal welfare and conservation organisations to implement plans to not only sustainably manage turtle and dugong populations but also implement hunting methods which are humane and which also take into consideration the cultural practices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I note the work of Dr Mark Flint and Dr Helene Marsh in consultation with Indigenous communities in developing a humane euthanasia device for the green turtle. This device will be trialled, with feedback provided from the Indigenous communities who formed part of the trial, and the final report will be provided by the end of this year. This fits with the non- enforcement time frame of 12 months for the development of regulations and guidelines to underpin this legislation as recommended by the committee in its tabled report. The development of appropriate protocols around the taking of native animals will benefit from the processes for conservation management plans for turtle and dugong being developed in the Torres Strait. It has been noted that these plans have been officially endorsed by the traditional owner representatives. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities will be encouraged to continue to work with scientists, animal welfare interest groups and other stakeholders to agree on acceptable hunting practices based on science and practicality while recognising traditional customs. The committee, in tabling its report on the legislation, sought an assurance from the minister that the consultation on the provisions of the bill will include specific detailed advice to all affected individuals and community groups regarding appropriate methods for killing animals that will cause the least amount of pain that is reasonable under their local circumstances. This advice should be based on the work which is currently being undertaken by Aboriginal and Islander communities, scientists, animal welfare groups and other stakeholders. The amendments as proposed by the legislation will mean all Queenslanders will have the same animal welfare obligations. Traditional and customary hunting rights including native title rights will not be removed by the amendments. The amendments will, however, regulate how hunting rights are exercised. Animals will need to be killed in a way that causes as little pain as possible. It is expected that this legislation, in so far as it relates to the killing of animals, will affect only a very limited number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are using methods which, while they may be traditional, are considered to be inhumane. It is noted that the recent consultations held by departmental officers sought views on two key questions, the first being how traditional owners and communities can work with the government to ensure turtle and dugong hunting causes as little pain as is reasonable to the animals and the second being what hunting method could be used in your community that would cause as little pain as possible. My consultations with local leaders and elders of the Aboriginal community in my electorate indicated that they were not at all concerned about the impact on their ability to hunt, the assumption being that they are now using methods which will likely fall into the category of ‘humane’ killing. Of bigger concern to the local leaders and elders of the Aboriginal community in my electorate is the definition relating to ‘communities’ for the sharing of the meat for cultural purposes. In my area there is no defined community boundary such as a local authority boundary area. Members of the local community move freely throughout the region, many of them living outside of what could be considered traditional clan areas. However, they still form part of the Aboriginal community and are still involved in traditional practices. Submissions made both before the tabling of the committee report and since have raised some questions as to the validity of the legislative effectiveness of the amendment proposed in clause 3(2) to section 61. The committee in the tabled report has noted these concerns and has sought clarification and assurances from the minister on the points raised. As can be seen from the tabled report, members of the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee had some significant concerns relating to the drafting of legislation, and accordingly have sought clarification and assurances from the minister in a number of areas. The committee is concerned that the wording ‘as little pain as is reasonable’ appears vague and is capable of varying interpretations and may not provide legislative certainty nor clear meaning. In recommendation 4 the committee seeks to add further clarity in the bill by having an amendment to the current bill which, if possible, will ensure that clear wording is substituted and clear examples of permissible hunting methods are included. This would remove the ambiguity and give individuals and community groups a clearer understanding of their obligations under the legislation. I note the proposed amendment which has been tabled by the minister. I believe the principles and the intent of the legislation have the support of the majority of the community including sections of the Aboriginal and Islander communities. However, there are difficulties in the drafting of the legislation to accurately and easily reflect the intent in a way which makes it easily 1864 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012 understood by those on whom the legislation impacts. Therefore, I believe as members of parliament it is our responsibility not only to pass the legislation but also to ensure that the legislation achieves the desired outcomes whilst ensuring the rights of the majority of the community. I will be looking to have further consultations with my local Aboriginal and Islander community as the consultation process and development of the underpinning regulations proceeds to ensure that these processes do indeed meet the intent of the legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Mr DILLAWAY (Bulimba—LNP) (5.56 pm): Although Bulimba— Mr Krause interjected. Mr DILLAWAY: I take that interjection. Although Bulimba has a limited turtle and dugong population, I rise today in the House to make a brief contribution to the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. I stand in great support of the proposed amendments, and I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for the introduction of this bill. I would also like to acknowledge the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee for its consideration of the bill. Following nationwide exposure from an investigation by the ABC’s 7.30 which included images of dugong and turtles being butchered and killed inhumanely in North Queensland and subsequent concern expressed by the community, the LNP made an election commitment to amend the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. This was to bring Queensland into line with the other states and to prevent immunity from prosecution for animal cruelty that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people exercising tradition and custom are provided under Queensland legislation. We, as the Queensland government, now honour this commitment by introducing this bill to the House. I note that it amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities (Justice, Land and Other Matters) Act 1984, the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and the Aurukun and Mornington Shire Leases Act 1978 so that any current exemption for dealings with animals both protected and native according to traditional custom is subject to the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. The bill will amend the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 to require that animals hunted under Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander custom or tradition are dealt with in a way that causes them as little pain as is reasonable. Until now no regulations were ever made under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 to impose conditions on how animals could be dealt with under traditional custom. An amendment made to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities (Justice, Land and Other Matters) Act 1984 will further clarify that the marine animals taken in the interest of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditions are to be consumed in the community government and Indigenous regional council area by the members of the that community. This will combat the concern that meat from our protected species are being sold on the black market for higher prices. The remarkable species of turtles and dugong are iconic to Queensland and we are very fortunate to be home to them. I acknowledge that considerable efforts are made by the Indigenous communities in Far North Queensland to sustainably manage this traditional hunting and to find more humane ways of processing the meat. However, this amendment will ensure that the minority who are not will be held accountable for any cruelty to these creatures that occurs. The most important aim of this bill is striking a balance between maintaining traditional and customary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural practices and meeting the animal welfare expectations of the broader community. I will re-emphasise the minister’s point that this bill is about regulation. It is not about prevention. It is not about extinguishing hunting rights. It is about protecting these species from unnecessary acts of torture or prolonged death whilst upholding the native title rights of our Indigenous people. As the member for Bulimba, I can say that we are situated in an area known as Tugulawa—which to the local Indigenous people means bend in the river—where Indigenous culture is greatly celebrated in many local schools and community groups. I am proud to say that one particular school, Lourdes Hill College, was the first school in Australia to implement a reconciliation action plan. It is important to our community to see that our Indigenous people maintain their native title rights and continue passing down their cultural traditions to future generations. The hunting of dugong and sea turtles in Australian waters can be traced back many thousands of years and it plays an important cultural role in Indigenous communities. For some Indigenous groups it is a rite of passage for young men and the meat is used for ceremonies and gatherings. The majority of hunters observe appropriate cultural protocols in their hunting practices, and I know that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been working to ensure that turtle or dugong hunting in their area is sustainable to protect the existence of these species. However, as is often the case, a small number of people are abusing the current right of exemption for dealing with animals according to the traditional custom under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. The Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 effectively targets this minority. Whilst it is important to value and celebrate the customs of our Indigenous people and defend their native title rights, we cannot ignore the issue of animal cruelty. Under this new legislation, animals will need to be killed in a way that causes as little pain as possible. With support from the RSPCA and 12 Sep 2012 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1865 other animal welfare groups and activists, this approach would be most practical in reaching a balance between the interests of Indigenous parties and the expectations of animal welfare groups and the broader community. By bringing Queensland into line with the other states and protecting the species of Queensland’s dugong and sea turtles from inhumane methods of hunting while continuing to allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to practise their traditional customs, the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 creates the right balance for the parties concerned. I stand in favourable support of the bill and I once again congratulate the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for bringing forth this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HATHAWAY (Townsville—LNP) (6.02 pm): I rise today to speak in support of the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. Townsville, as many of my learned colleagues know, enjoys having a significant portion of its boundary as tropical coastline. Although the honourable member for Whitsunday may not entirely agree with me, Townsville also enjoys the benefit of having some of the most beautiful and magical tropical islands like Magnetic Island and the Palm group, which also includes Orpheus Island. It is these archipelagic waters of the Townsville seat that are home to and the nursery areas for many dugong and turtles. I note that we recently experienced the tragic deaths of some dugong, largely as a result of degraded sea grass beds due to cyclone and storm action and significant rain events over the last 18 months. Most important to me with regard to this legislation, however, is that the lands on which the Townsville electorate are based have been the home of the traditional owners of the Wulgurukaba people—meaning canoe people—and the Bindal people for over 10,000 years. These traditional owners were there long before white man came along, and they have made their home and living from these surrounding waters. Therefore, a key consideration of this legislation for me is the potential impact to the current generation of traditional owners and subsequent generations, and this has given rise to my need to speak. I noted in the committee’s report that the bill attempts to balance animal welfare with traditional hunting rights. The bill does not withdraw any permission for traditional owners to hunt in accordance with Aboriginal tradition and Islander custom that remain guaranteed under Queensland or Commonwealth law, nor does it extinguish their native title rights to hunt. It simply provides the means to regulate the application of those authorisations and rights. I note that the committee’s review established that, in exercising their rights, traditional owners must ensure that they are effected in a way that does not involve killing an animal in a manner that causes pain that is unreasonable in the circumstances. I also note that there was some discourse within the committee and clarification sought from the department with regard to the potential subjectivity or vagueness of the reference to ‘killing an animal in a manner that causes pain that is unreasonable in the circumstances’. While I note the committee is satisfied that the amendment in clause 10 is sufficient to provide protections to those who give effect to their rights with the full intent of the bill, personally I remain concerned that this still may give rise to an offence where the emotions and media factor have a far greater influence and impact. Accordingly, I welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s notice in the House today that he will amend clause 10 and that the revised section 41A will be debated during the detailed consideration of this legislation. I believe this will give our Indigenous communities some guidance and, it follows, protections when exercising their rights. It is also for this reason that I strongly support the committee’s recommendation, as part of the bill’s implementation and communication program, that there be a 12-month grace period for enforcement of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 in respect of acts done under Aboriginal tradition or Torres Strait Islander custom. I welcome the fact that the minister foreshadowed endorsement of the grace period. Finally, and given my previous commentary, I also support and highlight the need to review this legislation within 12 months after commencement. Prior to me resuming my seat, I must comment on the member for Dalrymple’s contribution to this debate this afternoon. I was somewhat confused by his contribution. I note for the record that he is a member of the portfolio committee that scrutinised this bill, and I would assume that he would therefore be aware of the committee’s recommendations with reference to clause 3, which deals with section 61 of the act and the consumption of meat, and know that the minister has already submitted an amendment to this clause that gives effect to the committee’s recommendation. So the member for Dalrymple will obviously be surprised when he next attends a cultural meal of take under this legislation outside of a community area to find that it may taste remarkably like dugong or turtle. Mr TROUT (Barron River—LNP) (6.07 pm): I rise to speak in the House on the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. ‘All that will be left are the sounds of silence’— these are the prophetic words of Aunty Mary, an elder with the Mandubarra people of Innisfail. Aunty Mary, along with other Aboriginal elders, is deeply concerned by the ongoing slaughter of dugong and turtles by many Indigenous people. Queensland stands alone in this country and recognises the value of biodiversity and takes untold measures to protect same, including stringent import regulations that prevent the ingress of plant and animal diseases. We nurture our wildlife, and we educate our children 1866 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012 and indeed adults to respect and value native flora and fauna. We have punishments in place for those who fish illegally and take certain species from the oceans or rivers. We rightfully punish those who inflict cruelty on dogs, horses, cats and other domestic farm animals, but we have allowed vulnerable species—namely, the sea turtle and dugong—to endure the most horrific deaths. There can be few people in Far North Queensland who do not have a tale of beaches covered in carcasses of dugong, turtle and even dolphin which have often been netted, dragged to the beach, butchered alive and left to die with only small amounts of meat being removed. This is wastage on a huge scale. Selective hunting to feed the family is one thing; mass killings for a few kilos of meat collectively is another. It is a tragedy, and equally tragic is the fact that these brutal slayings have been allowed to continue. There is little or no monitoring or enforcement. Current research suggests that as many as 100,000 turtles and 1,600 dugong are slaughtered annually—‘slaughtered’ being the operative word. In late 2010 a local campaigner and Sydney barrister running a dugong and sea turtle campaign discovered that the 2001 Animal Care and Protection Act excluded Indigenous hunting from the cruelty act. Many approaches to the former government were ignored. The LNP was then approached to rectify this anomaly should it attain government. Today I stand to applaud the Newman government’s actions to fix this anomaly. As the situation stands at present, the pitifully few rangers with the huge responsibility for monitoring the marine environment had no powers at all to prevent indiscriminate slaughter by Indigenous hunters. Commercial trade in the meat of marine turtle and dugong is prohibited, but it happens; that is a fact. It has been proven time and time again that meat has been brought down from the Torres Strait to sell on the mainland. This has been confirmed by Torres Strait Islanders. It is a huge trade and the meat is sold in Cairns, Townsville and even further south. In 1998 Henry Garnier, respected elder from Hammond Island and deputy chairman of the Island Coordinating Council, the peak leadership group for the Torres Strait Island communities, said that many people were hunting dugong commercially, supplying the big island communities in Cairns and Townsville and other southern cities and that some are using guns to kill them. In 2010, following graphic and disturbing video footage of turtles having flippers hacked off while still alive, the Queensland RSPCA chief inspector, Michael Pecic, said— We’re committed to ensuring that any breaches of the Animal Care and Protection Act are fully investigated while at the same time taking into consideration traditional hunting rights. RSPCA Queensland chief executive Mark Townend said that until now cruelty to animals using traditional hunting methods has been put in the too-hard basket by governments but that, as a charity, they could not handle the situation alone. He also emphasised that the RSPCA’s stance was far from an attack on the Indigenous community and that there were Aboriginal and Torres Strait elders who supported the organisation on the issue. He went on to say— Hunting from tinnies with rifles is not traditional. Leaving turtles and dugongs to be butchered alive and left to die on the beach is not traditional. In Mark Baker’s prophetic 1998 report to the Age he said— We have to do something now. Not tomorrow or next week: Now. I don’t want my grandchildren to have to go to a museum to see what dugongs looked like. At the rate we are taking them, this is what will happen. In an ABC news report, North Queensland wildlife documentary filmmaker Ben Cropp reported that some Indigenous communities have resorted to selling the meat for cash. So here in Australia, in a civilised country, we rank amongst those Third World countries who are not privy to the information we possess that, for example, tells us that our marine species are endangered and vulnerable to extinction. This was the finding of a special meeting in Abu Dhabi in October 2010 where it was stated to the world that dugong will be extinct within 40 years if no action is taken on preserving this unique mammal. Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginal people use motorboats to chase dugong and there are frequent reports of nets and guns being used, which are not considered traditional methods of hunting. Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol has confirmed there is widespread abuse of traditional hunting rights: excessive catches of dugong and turtles, dugong calves speared to lure adults with their screams and commercial netting in Papua New Guinea waters within the jointly managed protection zone. The patrol has few resources and limited powers to respond. Under the 1993 Native Title Act, Indigenous Australians are entitled to take as many dugong and sea turtles as they like with no bag limit imposed. There is no bag limit. Most of the elders are aware that they are fragile species, but not all the people in the communities listen to their elders. Some of the young hotheads go out there and do what they like. Australia is a custodian of marine biodiversity. We have a responsibility to act. We are 14 years down the track from there and it is critical that we do all we can to preserve these creatures. Internationally, the dugong is listed as vulnerable to extinction by the World Conservation Union and as endangered under the United States Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the green turtle conservation status is listed nationally as vulnerable. The methods used by some to kill turtles and dugong are clear violations of prevention of cruelty to animal acts of every Australian state. Until now Queensland was the only state which exempted Indigenous people from the provisions of the act. Dr Colin Limpus, an expert on turtle conservation within the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, said 12 Sep 2012 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1867 that the RSPCA has little power to interfere with traditional hunting rights and that he personally had problems watching any animal being butchered alive, but he had to bite his tongue. Ironically, we put into place all manner of initiatives to prevent an impact on protected species and preserve our marine life. Closure of the Coral Sea is a prime example. On a smaller scale the commercial fishing industry has been encouraged, for instance, to fit turtle excluder devices to trawlers, undertake mandatory endangered and threatened species awareness courses and, ironically, develop codes of conduct for certain activities such as avoiding fishing in known turtle areas. On the other hand, we are encouraging, by a lack of fortitude and uniformity, the slaughter of those protected species in their thousands as a result of creating one rule for some Australians and another for the rest of the population. The fact is that we do not do ourselves any favours by hiding under the native title legislation. There is a world movement towards conservation of these marine animals and we are under the scope. It is widely known that we allow these atrocities to occur in the name of native rights. Hunting may be a native right; slaughter and cruelty are not. However, this issue is about the animals—the welfare of these animals only. Until today no-one had done anything about fixing this glaring problem. Today the LNP did just that. I wish to thank the ABC’s 7.30, Animals Australia and the RSPCA for bringing this issue into the open. I also thank Australian conservation legend Mr Bob Irwin, Rupert Imhoff, Colin Riddell and Sydney barrister Mr Geoffrey Beveridge for their help in bringing this issue to the attention of those who have made, and will make, a difference to the plight of these animals. I commend this bill to the House. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (6.16 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. At the outset I wish to comment about the contributions made by opposition members this afternoon which I find deplorable when we are discussing trying to make a difference to people’s lives and livelihoods. This amendment bill deals with animals hunted under Indigenous customs, whether it is the Indigenous people of Torres Strait Islander distraction or Aboriginal people who deal with their own customs and laws. This afternoon we saw a contribution from the member for South Brisbane. I believe that what she was saying was detrimental to what we are trying to achieve for not only the Indigenous people of this state but all people. If there is one thing that we in this state are all pretty proud of, it is the way we look after our animals, the way we care for them and the way we protect those less fortunate than ourselves. A lot of the people in the Indigenous communities of Far North Queensland and Far Western Queensland are animal lovers themselves. Whilst discussing this legislation, I want to put on the record that I think the member for South Brisbane is a very intelligent woman. However, all forms of intelligence disappear when she speaks in the manner she did today about there not being enough consultation. This piece of legislation was referred to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee on 19 June. It was then discussed at that committee and the report was tabled on 2 July. I say to the member for South Brisbane that this is about getting better representation for people, and there would be Indigenous people in her community. Some of those people would be absolutely gobsmacked at her performance here this afternoon. I hope we are going to see better things from the member for South Brisbane because she has the— Mr Stevens: Don’t hold your breath. Mr JOHNSON: I take the interjection from the Leader of the House, the honourable member for Mermaid Beach. I hope I do not have to hold my breath because we are elected to this parliament to not only do the best we can for the people we represent but also to introduce and pass legislation that is going to be advantageous to all people and all things in this state. It is about going forward and doing something that is going to be good rather than doing something negative. I will leave it at that. I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture for bringing this very responsible piece of legislation to the House. As someone who has been amongst animals all my life I know that, if you are going to kill a sheep or a bullock for meat, you always want a clean kill. I do not think it is any different for dugong or turtles. Indigenous people are hunters and gatherers, and a clean kill is what they desire. We will not allow indiscriminate killing of seafaring animals just for the sake of getting a feed. In 1997, when I was minister for transport and main roads, I was on Badu Island and saw firsthand the indiscriminate killing of some of these sea animals. They were laying in the mud at the beach. People had taken just enough flesh to feed a few people, and the rest was left there to rot. This is the type of situation we are addressing in this legislation. Just a few moments ago I heard the very worthwhile contribution of the member for Barron River, someone who fully understands just how these people live within their means. They are simple people but they are very intelligent when it comes to managing the environment. There will always be cowboys, or rogues. This legislation is about bringing the rogue element to heel and making them uphold the animal protection legislation that seeks to protect the species in question. Mr Newman: That is right. Mr JOHNSON: That is right. It is right because it is the decent thing to do. It is not about shooting roos or emus or killing dugong or turtles just for the sake of it; it is about killing them for a reason. In this case, it is mostly food for Indigenous people, whether they be Torres Strait Islanders or Aboriginal people. 1868 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

I could not agree more with what this legislation is about. As the minister said during his second reading speech, for the last decade animal welfare interest groups and others, including Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal people themselves, have voiced their concerns about the cruelty of hunting sea turtles and dugong. In his contribution the member for Beaudesert talked about the atrocities that were committed on Australian cattle in Indonesia and how that was detrimental to live cattle exports from North Queensland. I know one pastoralist who had to meet his interest and redemption bill of $300,000 before June last year when the rug was pulled out from under him by the federal government, which had no understanding or comprehension of what it is to repay money. We on the conservative side of politics know what it is to borrow money and we know the responsibility of paying it back. We saw the number of Labor Party members in this parliament reduced to seven because of poor management strategies over the last 15 or 16 years. Yesterday the Newman government brought down a hard but responsible budget that will take Queensland forward and re-establish the foundations of this great state as we move further into the 21st century. Pieces of legislation such as this bill will give Indigenous people the right to manage their own environment in the Far North. The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs understands that full well, as does the member for Cook. I hope that we will see more legislation like this come before the House that will make people aware of their responsibilities to protect animals and make certain that when they are killed, for whatever reason, it is done humanely and cleanly. For too long in this House we have heard about the Greens. Now the federal Labor government is trying to distance itself from the Greens. This Newman LNP government are conservationists at heart. We have green credentials too. I come from country where rain falls pretty light on and where people are resilient. I could name all of the good seasons in my lifetime; the rest have been crook. If we had not looked after the environment we lived in, we would have all perished a long time ago. That shows our green credentials and our credentials for looking after the environment, the wildlife and our own domestic stock. The Indigenous people of Far North Queensland want to do the same. They want a set of rules and regulations under which they can move forward and do the decent thing in their environment. It was the Labor Party in this state that turned the tide on Indigenous communities, that crippled Indigenous communities from taking the opportunity to develop their communities. We have seen what has happened as a result of the underground treatment with alcohol management plans. Whilst we are looking at how we might be able to change some of those communities around and give them control, we are not treating them as second-class citizens or as different. I come from country where black is black and white is white but, at the same time, we treat everybody the same. Black, white or brindle, we are one. That is how the Indigenous people of Far North Queensland want to be treated, too. Mr YOUNG (Keppel—LNP) (6.26 pm): I rise to speak briefly in the debate of the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. As an election promise, the Newman government committed to amend the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. The existing act failed to adequately protect dugong and sea turtles from unacceptable cruelty whilst people were carrying out traditional hunting. The bill will not withdraw any authorisation to hunt in accordance with Aboriginal tradition and Islander custom under Queensland or Commonwealth law; nor will the bill extinguish any native title rights to hunt or otherwise deal with animals. The bill will remove the current exemption for traditional hunters from the law that makes it illegal to wound, mutilate, torture or unnecessarily prolong the death of an animal. We need to be mindful of animal welfare obligations and strike a balance between the welfare needs of animals and allowing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to deal with animals in accordance with tradition and custom. To that end, the government will also amend four current acts— the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities (Justice, Land and Other Matters) Act 1984, the Aurukun and Mornington Shire Leases Act 1978 and the Nature Conservation Act 1992—to obtain the legislative approach which is necessary to protect animal welfare. An important aspect of the bill will ensure sustainability of turtles and dugong so that traditional hunting has a future. Society has moved forward, and practices historically deemed acceptable are now under review. This bill will address a concern shared by the broader community and by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I would like to commend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee for the hard work they have done. I commend the bill to the House. Sitting suspended from 6.28 pm to 7.30 pm. Mr RUTHENBERG (Kallangur—LNP) (7.30 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. Although I note the concerns of some groups in our community of Queensland that consultation time was limited—and I acknowledge these concerns— 12 Sep 2012 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1869

I lean in this instance to trusting the minister, as I know him to be an honourable man with a reputation that shows his integrity over a long time. Further, I am not convinced that any further extension of time to consider this bill will result in any substantial changes to the bill, given the amount of work done by the department and members of this parliament. Further, I submit that this is a policy that the LNP took to the last election as part of its policy platform. The people of Queensland voiced their opinion on this issue. I grew up in Papua New Guinea. My youth was spent among the local villagers and my best friends were boys from there. I am still welcome among my friends and their families in the village of Butibum and I still speak, read and write pidgin English fluently. As members can imagine, I spent my time fishing, running around the bush and, yes, hunting. I grew up in a country without TV and I have fond memories of my childhood. I may be in a unique position in this House, as I carry with me a long experience of hunting and fishing and watching men of the village hunt and fish. Much hunting was done with shotguns and traditional traps, but much was done with bows and arrows that were made by the men of the village. Spears were also used from time to time depending on the animals being hunted and how close we could get to the animals being hunted. For those who are not aware, when you hunt wild pig that have tusks those tusks are as sharp as razors and you need to pay them an incredibly healthy respect. In fact, I remember one time—I must have been about 12—we were running through a grassy paddock. The grass stood about a metre high. So you could not see what was behind you and we were chasing a boar that stood about just that high. There were four or five of us and I remember that boar at one point determining that it was no longer going to get chased. I can tell members that there were four or five boys running pretty darn fast away from this boar. I can assure this House that, in my experience, traditional methods of hunting do not include bludgeoning a turtle to death using a besser brick. I never witnessed or participated in hunting methods that included prolonged or inhumane methods to kill an animal. In fact, my experience was quite different. My experience was that traditional methods of hunting effected a death for the animal as quickly and as efficiently as possible so that they could not hurt the hunters. Traditional tribes and villagers have a great respect for the animals they hunt. They have a spiritual connection with the land and the animals they use for food and clothing. In fact, I remember some of the older men showing great respect to the animals before they killed them. Certainly, that is what I know and remember. My experience is that traditional hunting satisfies a need for food and clothing. For thousands of years the local people understood and practised a delicate ecological balance that ensured that animals were not overhunted or hunted for commercial means. That practice strikes me as fitting very well with the current common-sense environmental approach of the LNP. I do not have this level of experience with the Aboriginal people of Australia, but I certainly have a close relationship with several families in Far North Queensland of the Guugu Yimithirr language group. My eldest son’s middle name is Wandii. ‘Wandii’ is the word for the osprey eagle in Guugu Yimithirr. My wife and I were invited by the elders to give my son a language name in recognition of the work that my wife had done with the Aboriginal teenagers of Far North Queensland at that time. I am grateful for that honour. I spent many hours with the men and elders in Far North Queensland fishing, talking and fellowshipping with them and I am convinced that the traditions and practices that I experienced growing up in Papua New Guinea are very similar to those that the men and elders in Guugu Yimithirr country practised. Based on my experience, this bill is broad enough that it will not conflict with normal traditional hunting methods. In fact, I suggest that those who hunt using traditional methods will see no impacts on their practices, traditions, cultures and beliefs. I urge the minister to ensure that feedback mechanisms are in place over the next 12 months as the bill is implemented to ensure a proper and cultural understanding of what is and is not cruel so that those practising traditional hunting can do so with confidence and with the certainty that their cultures and traditions can be passed on to their children and to their children’s children. It is my understanding that this bill takes care with and is sensitive to traditional killing methods as it has provisions protecting them. I sat in this place and listened to the member for South Brisbane purporting to know and understand what traditional hunting is and how this bill would devastate our first peoples’ cultures and rights. Methinks she does not have a clue. Methinks she is using a political tactic that, once again, stirs up one small part of a small demographic of our community for the benefit of the Labor Party and not the community. We have seen this tactic used several times now to raise the profile of the member for South Brisbane over and above the interests of Queensland and over and above the positions of leadership this House imposes on us and the responsibilities that position of leadership requires of every member in this House. We all have a responsibility to as best as possible make changes to the law in our community in a manner that maintains calm and peace. From time to time, members of our community will exercise their democratic right to object to some of these changes. I welcome their efforts and I will personally fight to protect their right to do that. For example, although I personally do not agree with the Together union and think it is taking liberty with the truth when explaining our changes to its members, I respect 1870 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012 that union’s right to object to the changes. The union’s leadership is well organised and, for the most part, its members protest peacefully against those decisions. The difference between this type of peaceful protest and the practice of inciting people to unlawful actions, thus causing sections of our community to commit unlawful actions, must be guarded against by every member in this House. Although I am not accusing the member for South Brisbane of this, I am suggesting that her antics and her pushing of the boundaries of our standing orders display a disregard for the traditions and standing orders of this House. I suggest that she take a lead from more measured and experienced members so that we can conduct our business in an orderly and considered manner that is copasetic with and accomplishes the expectations of all Queenslanders of their representatives. As best I can judge, there has been consultation over a period leading up to this point with some very knowledgeable and influential people specifically about this bill. The policy contained in this bill was taken to the people to judge and they did comment during the election. I do not believe that this bill will adversely affect true traditional hunting methods. For that reason I will be supporting this bill. Mr PUCCI (Logan—LNP) (7.38 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. This bill will seek to bring a balance to animal protection on Indigenous land that is practised by the broader community whilst at the same time preserve the sacred traditions observed by the traditional owners of this fair land. Our government, in response to concerns from across our community in regard to cruelty by rogue hunters towards animals on native land, seeks to introduce legislation that not only allows traditional owners to reserve this part of their heritage but also bring about security and protection of the animals and marine life that also inhabit this great land of ours. This legislation will also see Queensland come into line with similar legislation endorsed and successfully implemented in our sister states. For too long this state has lagged behind other governments throughout our country. For years the community lobbied the former government to bring about necessary amendments, yet time and time again it refused. Once again within the first six months of the LNP government we are making good on our election promise to address the pressing needs facing animal protection in this state. This bill does not seek to impede by any means the traditional ways practised by the original owners of this land. It seeks to provide the much-needed balance between preserving their stoic traditional hunting methods and current legislation that is in place across the nation that regulates the humane methods when hunting on our shores. In society today many of our cultural values, traditions and observances are being put aside as we steam headfirst into a technological age of innovation and efficiency. In that forward push we run the risk of losing elements of our heritage that define who we are and that have shaped us as a people. We must endeavour to hold onto those very practices and, at the same time, well knowing that as a society our attitudes towards what once was common practice do change. It is our responsibility to pass on those traditions and the skills that come with them to our younger generations who are set to follow us in the very footsteps that we forge. We must commit ourselves to ensuring that those traditions we pass on are in keeping with how society as a whole undergoes an attitudinal change towards what was once accepted methods of hunting. If we lose hold of these traditions we lose part of our very own identity. Saying this, we must also act accordingly within contemporary times and continue to grow as a society that recognises a need for a progressive approach towards hunting in the modern era. We must approach all aspects of hunting with a reasonable and balanced attitude that accommodates the need to preserve traditions at the same time ensuring that endangered creatures like sea turtles and dugong are protected under appropriate legislation. This bill does not seek to remove the rights of traditional hunters. It does not seek to prohibit, obstruct or limit the right to practise their methods, what this bill does provide is the assurance that cruel and unnecessary methods of hunting are stamped out. It also seeks to ensure that only appropriate levels of native life are hunted and that the survival of these endangered species is assured. We must endeavour to continue our commitment towards protecting the national wildlife of our great country. We must ensure that these creatures will be living off our land and in our oceans for generations to come so that all Australians can appreciate their existence. With this bill a reasonable balance will be struck, allowing the regulated practice of hunting by our Indigenous population. With the implementation of this amendment a change in culture will occur. For those found to be entrenched in using practices that would now be considered illegal, a grace period where they would not automatically be prosecuted would be in place. Instead, programs with local Indigenous groups liaising with the Department of Fisheries will be in place to work with the community in relation to the new changes to the legislation. During the initial stages of this legislative amendment only in cases of either repeat offenders or extreme brutality will offenders be taken straight to prosecution. To make such a significant change in the approach a culture takes towards its own practices will not occur overnight, but with supportive programs and assistance from the local community groups the smoothness in transition will occur. After 12 months of this legislation being in place the committee recommends that a review occur to ensure that the legislation has been successfully implemented and is meeting with its objectives whilst not creating a negative impact on the 12 Sep 2012 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1871 traditional practices observed on our land. It is through these initiatives that an equal balance between preservation and tradition will occur, strengthening both elements of traditional hunting. It is for this reason that I am proud to support this bill and commend it to the House. Mr KING (Cairns—LNP) (7.43 pm): I rise to support the Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. The first point I want to put on the parliamentary record is my utter dismay and, frankly, disgust with the behaviour of the Labor Party in opposing this bill. They just do not get it. They have used every excuse in the book to avoid supporting this practical bill, which is simply about the cruel treatment and slaughter of turtles and dugong. This is not about Indigenous rights or traditional hunting—not at all. This is not about white versus black. This is about cruelty. I live in Cairns in Far North Queensland. I live in the very place these despicable acts of cruelty by a select rogue element are taking place. I have spoken with Indigenous and non-Indigenous people who are appalled by the behaviour of these rogue elements. I have spoken with tourism operators who are forced to stand by in shock and horror with tourists from all over the world as these rogue elements carry out the most despicable acts of cruelty on these beautiful marine creatures. I refer now to an article in the Cairns post on 10 November 2011 that details just a couple of incidents near Green Island, a tourism icon in my electorate. The article states— Tourists have watched on in horror as turtles have been slaughtered in a popular holiday location in the Far North. Tourism operators said— ... killings happened often enough to distress visitors and send the wrong message around the world. Visitors to Green Island ... were confronted with a number of speared turtle carcasses left at the popular tourist island. Two weeks ago, tourists said they saw fins being cut off turtles on an island beach. A ranger at the park was also believed to have been threatened for asking traditional hunters not to kill marine animals in front of tourists. I table that article for the record. Tabled paper: Article from cairns.com.au, dated 10 November 2011, titled ‘Calls for action on traditional turtle hunting after tourists witness slaughter on Green Island’ [1028]. I reiterate that this bill is about cruelty such as those acts described above and many, many more. This bill is long overdue and yet again we see that our government is acting where the previous Labor government failed. I pay tribute to far northern animal campaigner Colin Riddell whose tireless work on this particular issue over many years, alongside Bob Irwin and others, has played a large role in our moves to stamp out this despicable practice. Colin has been appalled by the lack of action by Labor members such as his own MP, the member for Mulgrave, who for many years has stuck his head in the sand and refused to even acknowledge that there was a problem with some traditional hunting practices. I also pay tribute to Green Island’s Steve Davies who has repeatedly stood up and spoken out about these cruel acts because he has had to deal with the impacts on a weekly basis. I reiterate that this bill does not in any way impede on the ability for Indigenous people to exercise traditional hunting rights. This is about cruelty. This is about stopping certain rogue elements from tethering a dying dugong to attract other dugong. This bill intends to stop certain rogue elements from cutting pieces of meat from a turtle to eat before the turtle has died. It stops the practice of storing a turtle for an extended period of time on its back without adequate food and water so that it dies. The Labor MPs opposite should hang their heads in shame for opposing this practical bill. If, for example, this was a debate or a bill about the cruel slaughter or torture of koalas, would the Labor MPs opposite oppose it and speak in the despicable way they have in this chamber? That example highlights the hypocrisy of the Labor Party yet again. Just like the treatment of koalas or any other animal, cruelty cannot be tolerated in any way regardless of the reason for that behaviour. I fully support and commend the minister for this bill and I commend it to the House. Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (7.48 pm): Let me start by stressing the fact that absolutely nobody wants to see animals needlessly suffer. No-one could watch the footage aired in March on 7.30 of a turtle being killed and not be horrified. No-one disagrees with the intentions of this bill. However, it must be acknowledged that this is a culturally sensitive issue that should be addressed carefully. This bill has the potential to seriously affect native title rights. I do not believe the government has consulted widely enough or considered the issue carefully enough before bringing this legislation on for debate. In fact, after a conversation only late last week one stakeholder I spoke to was under the impression that there are assurances of further consultation to be undertaken by the government and that this bill was to be debated possibly in November. I am confident that the vast majority of native title holders who exercise their traditional hunting rights can be engaged to improve animal welfare practices. Unfortunately, this government has done little to constructively consult. Much more could have been done—in fact, much more should have been done—to work out a real solution to this issue. First of all, it would have been wise to examine what steps could have been taken to educate more Indigenous Queenslanders in animal welfare and learn and understand what is culturally appropriate. The point has been made several times that we have had blanket bans put in place on a number of occasions, which is why, broadly, I do not support the legislation. It is important to note that, up and down the Queensland coast and into the Torres Strait, 1872 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012 various different clan groups have different approaches and different methods of dispatching an animal. I think that that is the sort of thing that we need to pick up as a part of this debate. I certainly remember an issue in my electorate at Yarrabah when a turtle was left to bake in the sun. At the time, I made a statement along these lines— Like most people, I found it very difficult to watch the footage on Seven News earlier this week of a turtle at Yarrabah left to bake in the sun. From my perspective, this was a case of animal cruelty. Where it occurred or why is not the point. I don’t know anyone who condones the inhumane activity like this, especially Traditional Owners. While I did not agree with the then LNP opposition’s proposal for changes and every aspect of their animal cruelty regulations, I did agree with the general principles behind them and I was on the record as saying so. That is why I supported the work that our joint Commonwealth/state task force on turtle and dugong was doing. It was committed to looking at whether there were any occurrences of perceived animal cruelty during traditional hunting and gathering that required tougher regulations. Tonight I am standing next to the member for Mackay, who was the previous minister responsible for this particular piece of legislation. I met with him and the former environment minister to talk about this very important issue. We did explore it. We explored it, but it was very difficult to do in a way that was not going to disadvantage a range of other people and impact on animals besides turtle and dugong. As we know, it is also complex because it relates very much to the Native Title Act itself. I will talk a little more about that later. Another main reason for not supporting this bill is that I genuinely believed that there would be a greater amount of time ahead for consultation. I had planned a range of potential meetings with people to discuss how we may go further with this bill. I am disappointed in that regard. I am very disappointed that it has been rushed through the committee process. The entire committee inquiry was conducted in only two weeks and only three organisations were sufficiently well resourced to provide submissions. Because of the timeframes, submissions were not able to be as detailed as the organisations would have liked. I understand that consultation will happen after the legislation has been introduced. That goes against the principles that I believe we should be upholding in this place. We should get it right. That is why the committee system is so important. We go through that process so any deficiencies in the legislation and any problems that it may cause will be identified and, through the consultation process, the most culturally appropriate way of going about it will be done. I want to talk briefly about native title concerns. I am concerned about the interaction with native title rights and that the bill may severely curtail the ability of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living away from their traditional homelands to participate in cultural ceremonies and rites. A specific example of that is the community of Yarrabah. I have worked closely with the people in that community on a traditional hunters reference group. As we know, Yarrabah was a mission community and people who are not from the area were brought to the community against their will. They are never going to be traditional owners of that land, but of course, as part of their Aboriginality, they want to ensure they can continue what has been a customary practice for them. It poses significant issues for them in terms of their ability to actually partake in that in a way that does not breach the Native Title Act. All these additional concerns arise with this particular piece of legislation and I think it is part of a broader suite of programs that should be looked at. That is why more consultation is needed. The member for Cairns talked about Colin Riddell being a champion for these issues in Cairns and Far North Queensland. It is important to note that for the past few years plenty of people have continued to make simplistic statements about what clearly is a complex issue, often as a means of cheap political point scoring or for other agendas. One such person is Colin Riddell. I do not doubt he believes in his campaign; I do not doubt that. However, as he has said it is as much about using wedge political issues to attack the Labor Party as it is about the welfare of turtles and dugong. You only need to look at the fact that his approach has been divisive and fairly and squarely focused on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, rather than all the potential threats to turtle and dugong populations. We have not heard him talk at length about boat strike and we have not heard him talk at length about habitat decline. Those are significant and very important issues that must be addressed. In December 2010, one of the leading dugong experts in Australia, Dr Helene Marsh, wrote a piece for the Cairns Post titled, ‘Time to turn poacher into gamekeeper’. I table that article for the benefit of the House, because it is worth reading. It is a short piece. Dr Marsh talks about the fact that habitat decline and boat strike, in particular, are very important issues that must be addressed in terms of dealing with turtle and dugong survival and sustainability. Tabled paper: Article from Cairns Post, dated 11 December 2010, titled ‘Time to turn poacher into gamekeeper’ [1029]. This bill is about the people dispatching an animal in a way that is humane and not cruel. As has been touched on a couple of times this evening, it is important to reiterate that there is certainly a spiritual connection for people who are hunting animals using traditional hunting rites in a culturally appropriate way. Of course, the direct parallel with that spiritual nature is areas around religious significance and religious killing. That is a very important aspect and there are exemptions under the act to allow for that. You could argue that, even away from traditional hunting rites, the religious and spiritual aspects are why this issue has to be treated so sensitively and in a way that is all about further consultation. 12 Sep 2012 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1873

I believe that the blanket approach is not the best way to go. You only have to look at examples up and down the Queensland coast, including the Mamu people and areas of Wujal Wujal and others, where the people have put in place voluntary moratoriums because they believe that that is the appropriate thing to do. Mr Cripps: That is controlling the take, though; it is not the method of taking. Mr PITT: I take the interjection from the honourable minister. He is correct, but I am suggesting that these issues all need to be looked at as a package, as a suite of programs, to ensure sustainability and to ensure that we are not jumping to conclusions so that, perhaps in this case, an election commitment can be met. With further thought we could find a way of doing this that will result in the best outcome for the wonderful animals that we are talking about and, at the same time, for traditional hunting by Indigenous Australians. Quite simply, this is a missed opportunity and it is why I would like to have seen longer consultation, so that we could have a proper conversation and engage people who have genuine food security risks in the Torres Strait. Of course, we need to consider people who are visiting an area or those who do not live in their traditional areas and will never be traditional owners, so straight away would be in breach of the Native Title Act. They want to know how they will be able to do this in a way that does not infringe on any rights. This bill needs much more consideration than it has been given. It needs to be considered as a broader suite of programs. That is why I am disappointed. We will not support the bill, although we do believe it has some merit. However, we are disappointed because we do not think that the consultation process has been fleshed out well enough. It could have been done in a much better way to ensure that we have a better outcome for all Queenslanders by getting a consensus view on what clearly is a complex issue. Hon. JJ McVEIGH (Toowoomba South—LNP) (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (7.58 pm), in reply: Firstly, I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the bill. In particular, I thank my colleagues, the honourable Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Premier and the honourable Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection for their collaborative efforts to address the failings of the members opposite in protecting turtles and dugong from cruel hunting practices. I acknowledge their efforts, both in this House and during the recent election campaign. I also wish to thank members who have taken the time to fully understand these amendments and to contribute to the debate based on that clear understanding. I thank those members who have recognised the important role that the committee has played and I am pleased to reiterate that I have taken recommendations of the committee into consideration in the preparation of amendments before the House this evening. I would like to clarify, as I go on, the misunderstanding quite clearly of those opposite in relation to a range of issues. But before I do so, let me again reiterate the intention to move amendments, as I explained earlier, which provide clarity around practices that are taken not to cause as little pain as is reasonable. Can I reflect on the comments initially in this debate from the deputy opposition leader. I must admit that I was initially confused as he appeared to spend a good 10 or 15 minutes attempting to defend his record as minister for primary industries under the former Labor government. Whilst I do not have time this evening to unpack all of those claims that he made, can I share with the House that over the last almost six months as Minister for Agriculture, through extensive consultation with industry right across the state, industry organisations and certainly staff within my own department, I have not found any support for that feeble attempt at a defence of his record. He seemed to skirt around the fact that the former Labor government in relation to the issues before the House this evening did nothing. It lacked the intestinal fortitude to deal with concerns regarding dugong and turtle cruelty raised throughout his term as minister, and indeed raised in the wider community and particularly from within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community itself over the last decade. As the members for Glass House and Lockyer mentioned in the debate, protecting Queensland’s precious wildlife, dugong and turtles, was an election commitment, a policy, provided by the LNP at the last election and it was explicit about amending the Animal Care and Protection Act in order to bring Queensland in line with other states. The Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee invited selected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders identified by the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs to participate in a round table discussion as part of its inquiry into the bill. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders were invited to participate in consultation meetings on the bill in Brisbane, in Townsville, in Cairns and on Thursday Island during July of this year. Stakeholders were also invited to provide written submissions, and several representative bodies did just that. My colleague Mr Elmes personally met with the mayors of the Torres Strait, the Torres Strait Island Regional Council and the chairperson of the Torres Strait Regional Authority on 26 July 2012. The government will continue talking to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people about the legislation over coming months, as has been clearly outlined. The government will be encouraging communities to work with scientists, animal welfare interest groups and others to agree on acceptable hunting practices based on science and practicality whilst recognising tradition and custom. 1874 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

In relation to the consultation that has been done, I note the comments of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs and his assistant minister, the member for Cook, in which they referred to Indigenous councils, as I said, the RSPCA and the LGAQ. I acknowledge their strong contribution in this regard and that of the committee and again thank them for their assistance in drafting what we have all agreed—those who are supporting this—is a better bill this evening. This bill will not withdraw any authorisations to hunt turtles and dugong or any other animals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition and Islander custom under Queensland law. Nor will the bill extinguish any native title rights to hunt. The bill will regulate the exercise of traditional and customary hunting. It will mean that a person must exercise that traditional or customary right or authorisation to kill an animal in a way that causes the animal as little pain as is reasonable. Native title is recognised at common law and is protected under the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993. The bill will not extinguish any native title rights to hunt. It will simply regulate the exercise of native title rights and interests. The bill makes it clear that a person does not avoid liability to prosecution under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 only because they were exercising native title rights or interests. The government’s view is that the affect on native title would be valid under subdivisions M and N of the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993. In terms of enforcement and comments made in that regard, except for significant animal welfare breaches, for the first 12 months following commencement of the bill those found using cruel hunting methods would be given a warning rather than be prosecuted. If a complaint is received, specialist investigators appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001, with the assistance of other agencies as appropriate, would investigate that alleged offence. During the first 12 months the government’s focus will be to make sure those who are alleged to be using cruel practices know about the legislation and to warn them about the need to change their hunting methods. The government would discuss with the relevant community the serious consequences of failing to self-regulate. Where warnings and community engagement have still not effected change and cruelty is ongoing after 12 months, investigators would undertake formal complaint driven enforcement of the Animal Care and Protection Act. I make reference to officers being available, as outlined by my fellow ministers, from the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs and rangers, of course, from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. This is all in line with the broader initiatives from the Newman government regarding Indigenous communities and working with them to better their futures and Cape York in general. Mr Deputy Speaker, can I share with you that it is an absolute pleasure to work, as the Premier stated publicly some weeks ago, not in silos but jointly with fellow ministers for the benefit of all Queenslanders—in this case Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginals. The query was raised as to whether or not the bill is inconsistent with an exemption for religious slaughter. Can I state that currently section 45 of the Animal Care and Protection Act means that a person is exempt from the offence of animal cruelty if they can prove in their defence that they slaughtered the animal for human food in accordance with religious faith. Although the exemption has been in place since the Animal Care and Protection Act came into force in 2001, I am advised that to date none of the registered meat processing facilities in Queensland have relied on the exemption. There is a review underway at a national level of what welfare requirements should apply to slaughter in accordance with religious faith because interstate there are some meat processors, I am advised, slaughtering animals without prior stunning to meet a market for kosher products, and I consider that to be a far different issue. I refer to comments just raised by the member for Mulgrave, who asserted that different clan groups have different methods of dispatching an animal and that methods should be culturally appropriate. And guess what? I agree with him, because Queensland’s animal welfare legislation generally avoids imposing prescriptive animal welfare obligations. Consistent with this approach, the bill will require that traditional and customary hunting rights are exercised in a way that causes animals, as I have said previously, as little pain as is reasonable. The government will not be imposing particular practices on particular communities. The government will encourage communities to work, as I said earlier, with scientists and animal welfare groups and others, to agree on acceptable hunting practices based on science and practicality whilst recognising tradition and custom—and if that is not consultation I do not know what is. To come back to the bill, the amendments on the table this evening, as I said earlier, will remove clause 3(2) of the bill, which would have affected the consumption of dugong and turtle meat taken under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities (Justice, Land and Other Matters) Act outside of community areas. That amendment instead means that the government will be working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders to develop agreements to manage the transport of dugong and turtle meat. The amendments will also insert in clause 10 of the bill examples of hunting practices that would not be permissible under the amended Animal Care and Protection Act. The examples will ensure traditional and customary hunters know that these hunting practices will not be tolerated. 12 Sep 2012 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1875

This bill is the basis of an election commitment. Its focus is on animal cruelty, but it does not affect native title rights or traditional hunting practices and customs. I reflect on the fact that in this debate the member for Townsville expressed his confusion in relation to statements by the member for Dalrymple on both consultation and, more particularly, transportation of meat which I addressed a few moments ago and which are addressed in the amendments I brought to the table this evening. I can only assume the member for Dalrymple was perhaps not listening. I agree with the expression of disgust from the member for Gregory at the tactics and the contribution from those opposite, especially that of the member for South Brisbane. I note that the member for South Brisbane during her contribution— Mr Bleijie: A lousy contribution. Mr McVEIGH:—referred to me as a man of the law. I am not sure whether she has been peeking through the curtains or going through my garbage, but I am not a man of the law. I assume she meant I was a solicitor or a lawyer. With respect to the Attorney-General, in particular, I trust he was not jealous of that attention. Mr Bleijie: No, that is all right. Mr McVEIGH: I suggest it would be best to recognise the experience, if you are going to make a contribution to the debate, of those who have practical experience, particularly Minister Elmes, who over the last six months as minister, and more particularly prior to that, worked so feverishly on these issues. He has led consultation and will continue to do so. I reflect again on the contribution of the member for Cook, who has a lived experience of these issues within these communities. Whilst I have lived in North Queensland during my career and it is where my wife is from, I defer to his experience in particular as the northern most member in our parliament. He has more experience at a hands-on level than I, as the member for Toowoomba South, have in this regard. He has, with respect, more experience than the member for Southern Downs, the member of the southernmost electorate, and I also reflect on the fact that he clearly has more experience than the member for South Brisbane. I am saddened by these tactics shown during the debate tonight and the disgraceful disregard for the parliamentary and committee process. In conclusion, I acknowledge the references, amongst others, to Mr Colin Riddell and Bob Irwin made by some of my fellow ministers and other speakers here this evening and their efforts in campaigning for appropriate treatment of our iconic dugong and turtle populations over such a long period. These amendments will strike a balance between the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in maintaining their traditional and customary practices and the expectations of the broader community including—and I stress ‘including’—many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves for whom animal cruelty is unacceptable. I am sure they would agree with my contention that a vote against this bill this evening is simply a vote for animal cruelty. Mr Stevens: Correct. Mr Bleijie: Shame! Mr McVEIGH: For the last 10 years there has been concern that a small number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are currently exempt from Queensland’s animal welfare laws have been hunting turtles and dugong using methods that cause unnecessary pain and suffering. The bill will remove the current exemptions so that animal welfare obligations under the Animal Care and Protection Act will apply to traditional and/or customary dealings with animals including hunting sea turtles and dugong. I stress again that the bill does not take away traditional or customary hunting rights including native title rights. It merely requires that traditional or customary hunting rights be exercised in a way that causes animals as little pain as is reasonable. I commend the bill to the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3— Mr McVEIGH (8.16 pm): I move the following amendments— 1 Clause 3 (Amendment of s 61 (Right of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to particular natural resources)) Page 4, line 15, ‘(1) Section’— omit, insert— ‘Section’. 2 Clause 3 (Amendment of s 61 (Right of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to particular natural resources)) Page 4, lines 18 to 20— omit. 1876 Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

I table the explanatory notes to my amendments. Tabled paper: Animal Care and Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, explanatory notes to the Hon. John McVeigh’s amendments moved in consideration in detail [1030]. Mr MULHERIN: The opposition is opposed to this bill because of the lack of consultation. We will be voting against it because of the lack of consultation. As the lack of public consultation was raised at the public hearings, could the minister detail who he personally met with and consulted on this bill? Has he met with Indigenous groups? Who were they? Did he meet with the Torres Strait Island Regional Council and other Indigenous communities in the cape? The other thing I raised in my speech on the second reading stage—and I note that this amendment amends clause 3 of the bill—is that it could be inconsistent with the federal Native Title Act. Given that the minister is now removing this clause, I want to know what legal advice he received regarding the former clause’s relationship with the Native Title Act. Mr McVEIGH: In terms of the comments raised, first of all in relation to consultation, I again can only assume the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was not attentive in my second reading speech this evening because it was very clearly outlined in line with our proposal from day one that the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs would lead all consultation on the matter, and that is exactly what happened. As Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs, that is his appropriate role. He spent a lot of time doing that. Unlike the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s actions in his previous role—where he clearly did not spend much time fulfilling his role as the former minister for primary industries—that is what I have been doing over the last six months and I look forward to continuing to do so. In terms of the legal advice, the government’s view is that the effect on native title would be valid, as I said earlier—again, I stress that the member should listen to the speeches provided—under subdivisions M and N of the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993. Amendments agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 4 to 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Mr McVEIGH (8.21 pm): I move the following amendment— 3 Clause 10 (Insertion of new s 41A) Page 7, line 21— omit, insert— ‘(3) For subsection (2), the following acts or omissions are taken not to cause the animal as little pain as is reasonable— (a) injuring the animal to stop it escaping after it has been caught; (b) injuring the animal or prolonging its life to attract another animal; (c) taking flesh from the animal for human consumption before the animal is dead; (d) doing a thing or omitting to do a thing that causes the animal to die from dehydration or starvation. ‘(4) In this section—’. Mr MULHERIN: I note the minister said there is work happening at a national level through the agricultural ministerial council in relation to exemptions for the slaughter of animals for religious rituals. Would the minister explain why he is still allowing this exemption in the legislation for religious activities but not for traditional hunting? Has he received any legal advice as to whether this discrepancy is discriminatory? Mr McVEIGH: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for that question. Again, I outlined in my speech this evening the approach we have taken, and he has acknowledged already what I said so I thank him for listening to that in relation to the national review that is underway. In terms of legal advice, I have explained some of the legal advice we have received, but I would suggest that, as the opposition is in a position to share legal advice that the Minister for Health so desperately wants, so are we. The point though is that it should be acknowledged that these amendments are very much valid under the Racial Discrimination Act, and that is of key priority for me, amongst other things. Amendment agreed to. Clause 10, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 11 to 14, as read, agreed to. 12 Sep 2012 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 1877

Third Reading Hon. JJ McVEIGH (Toowoomba South—LNP) (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (8.23 pm): I move— That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Division: Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. AYES, 73—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Douglas, Dowling, Driscoll, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Hopper, Johnson, Judge, Kaye, King, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Walker, Watts, Wellington, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Menkens, Smith NOES, 9—Byrne, Katter, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Long Title Hon. JJ McVEIGH (Toowoomba South—LNP) (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (8.31 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

QUEENSLAND ART GALLERY AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Hon. RM BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts) (8.31 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I rise to speak on the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill, a bill which will establish a foundation committee to raise funds to assist in the fulfilment of the Queensland Art Gallery board’s functions. The current Queensland Art Gallery Foundation has been in place since 1979 and has raised over $70 million in donations, bequests and gifts of artworks from both private and corporate donors. Work sourced through the foundation constitutes about one-third of the gallery’s collection and includes masterpieces by such renowned artists as Ian Fairweather, Sally Gabori and Tracey Moffatt. In 2008 an Auditor-General’s report highlighted some governance problems with the current constitution of the foundation which may have exposed those involved to some legal liability. Those problems included concerns that the board oversight of the foundation was not sufficient, there was no explicit protection from civil liability when carrying out the functions of the foundation committee and there was no clarification to the foundation’s role as a charitable body. This bill places the fundraising arm of the Queensland Art Gallery on a much stronger footing. By allowing the Queensland Art Gallery board to establish a foundation committee, it clarifies the authority of the board over the foundation committee, establishing a clear line of governance. Importantly, this bill also ensures that foundation committee members are protected from civil liability when carrying out the function of the foundation committee. This model brings Queensland into line with the successful National Gallery of Victoria fundraising model which provides an appropriate level of certainty to those in that role. This bill was tabled in the last parliament and lapsed when parliament was prorogued. I made it a priority to reintroduce it into this parliament, and it was referred to the parliamentary Education and Innovation Committee. On 8 June 2012, that committee tabled its Report No. 2, entitled Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012 to the parliament. The Education and Innovation Committee noted that the previous version of the bill, the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2011, was introduced into parliament on 29 November 2011 and was referred to the former finance and administration committee. The Education and Innovation Committee noted that the bills are essentially the same and that the former committee, the finance and administration committee, had called for public submissions by way of public advertisement and by writing directly to stakeholders. It was noted that no submissions were received and the scheduled departmental briefing had not occurred prior to the dissolution of parliament. Given the short time frame for the Education and Innovation Committee to finalise its report and considering that no submissions had been received, the committee did not call for further public submissions. A departmental briefing was conducted before the Education and Innovation Committee in May 2012. I would like to thank the Education and Innovation Committee for its detailed report on the Art 1878 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

Gallery Amendment Bill 2012, which was tabled last month. In particular, I would like to thank those new members of parliament who have applied themselves to the task with gusto and relish. The committee has delivered a comprehensive report, and I am particularly pleased to note that the committee’s recommendations in respect of this bill are unanimous. The Queensland government response to the Education and Innovation Committee’s report No. 2 relating to the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012 was recently tabled. The committee’s report notes that recommendations in respect of the bill are unanimous and recommends that the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012 be passed. The committee also recommended the terms of appointment of members of the foundation committee reflect the terms of appointment of board members, given the foundation committee members are appointed by the board and considering the close relationship between those two bodies. Under the current legislation, the Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987, board members are appointed for a term of not more than three years. The bill does not prescribe maximum terms of appointment for nominees for appointment as foundation committee members. However, the bill does set out the governance arrangements for the foundation committee. The bill provides that the board appoints the members of the foundation committee and may decide the constitution of that committee. The terms of appointment of current board members are aligned at present. However, it is possible that any future appointment terms may be staggered. As at least two members of the foundation committee must be board members, the terms of appointment of these members must align with their existing terms of appointment as board members. The constitution may deal with terms of appointments of members of the foundation committee and will provide the board with flexibility in aligning the terms of appointment of any nominees proposed to be appointed as members of the foundation committee. I consider this arrangement to be sufficient for the board to ensure that foundation committee members are appointed for up to three years only and do not propose to amend the bill to specify this requirement. The Education and Innovation Committee also recommended that the board be required to decide the name and membership conditions, and endorse the constitution for, the foundation committee as the foundation committee will include non-board members. The Queensland government supports this recommendation and I will move an amendment during consideration in detail of the bill which will place a mandatory requirement on the board to decide the name and membership conditions, and endorse the constitution for, the foundation committee. The amendment will retain the current general power for the board to determine matters outside the legislative provisions and this will ensure that the board retains control over the foundation committee and has flexibility to determine any other governance arrangements. A further recommendation from the Education and Innovation Committee was that consideration be given to ensuring there is capacity to terminate the appointment of a member of the foundation committee if that member was found to have breached sections of the bill regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest and dealing with material personal interests. In this regard, the board will be able to rely on current section 25 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 to terminate any appointments. Section 25 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 provides that if an act authorises or requires a person or body to appoint a person to an office, the power includes the power to remove or suspend, at any time, a person appointed to the office. This power to terminate is also consistent with the power of the Governor in Council under the current legislation to end the appointment of all or any board member at any time and for any reason or none. In addition, section 22 of the Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987 provides that the board is subject to written directions in exercising its powers if the minister determines this is required. Lastly, the committee sought clarification of the reporting obligations to be placed on the foundation committee, including and in addition to annual reporting requirements. Under the bill, the foundation committee will be a committee of the board, which is a statutory body established by the Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987. The board is also a ‘statutory body’ under the Financial Accountability Act 2009 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982. As the foundation committee will be a committee of the board, its operations are also subject to the legislation mentioned above and the prescribed reporting requirements, which ensures regular reporting of activities. For example, the Financial Accountability Act 2009 provisions relating to ensuring the operations of the statutory body are carried out efficiently, effectively and economically; preparing financial statements and annual reports; as well as establishing and maintaining appropriate systems of internal control and risk management apply to the board and its committees. Financial information relating to the foundation committee’s activities is required to be included in the board’s financial statements as the foundation committee is controlled by the board. The financial statements are consolidated into the board’s financial reports. The Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987 also contains additional reporting requirements which apply to the board and, as a result of the bill, these will apply to the foundation committee. Section 43 requires the board to prepare and submit to the minister for agreement draft strategic and operational plans for the board which must include a statement of resource implications and any major policy changes along with any budget documents. 12 Sep 2012 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 1879

Section 49 requires the board’s operational plans to include an outline of investments and borrowings that the board intends to make together with an outline of the nature and scope of activities, including commercial and fundraising activities that the board proposes to make. Section 51 requires the board to keep the minister reasonably informed of the board’s operations, including its financial and operational performance of the achievement of its goals. This section also requires the board to give the minister reports and information that may be required to enable the minister to make informed assessments of the matters mentioned earlier. Section 53 requires the board to include a summary of the operational plan for the relevant financial year in its annual report under the Financial Accountability Act 2009. Under its current constitution, the Foundation Council prepares an annual report for the foundation, minutes of all resolutions and proceedings of general matters of the foundation and proper accounts. The board proposes to maintain current reporting practices, and the bill provides the board with the power to do so. It will have the power to determine the foundation committee’s constitution and procedures, including for example the keeping of minutes. Currently, separate monthly financial statements are prepared for the foundation and presented at subsequently scheduled board meetings. I again commend the bill to the House, together with the proposed amendments which I will move during consideration in detail, to enable the important work of the foundation to continue into the future to support the board in developing the state’s collection of artworks to the benefit of the Queensland community. Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (8.41 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012, introduced into this House by the Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts on 17 May 2012. In essence, the purpose of this bill is to clarify and improve the governance arrangements that underpin the work of the Art Gallery Board of Trustees and, in particular, in maintaining, developing and improving Queensland’s collection and arts facilities. From the outset, can I advise the House that the opposition will be supporting this bill and the amendments. Currently, this work is undertaken by the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation, which was originally formed in 1979. However, the foundation is not recognised under statute and only has quasi-legal status. Additionally, the provisions of the current act only allow the board to establish a subcommittee, which is what the foundation essentially is, but it may only be comprised of members from the board and determined by the board. This limits the board’s ability to co-opt other interested members of the community onto the foundation in order to enhance fundraising efforts and continue to improve the state’s collection. The purpose of this amendment bill is to, firstly, regularise the status of the foundation by enshrining it as a standing committee or as the foundation committee of the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees under statute. Secondly, the bill enables the appointment of members onto the foundation committee who may or may not be members of the board. Therefore, this bill will enable the board to establish the foundation committee under the existing Queensland Art Gallery board with a broader membership, with the protections from civil liability currently afforded to board members extending to committee members on the foundation. This bill is uncontentious. It is purely functional and it is long overdue. However, this is the second time this amendment bill has been introduced into this House. The first time the bill was introduced was by the former Labor minister for arts, Rachel Nolan. Indeed, the director-general of the department, Mr Phil Reed, stated in the public hearing on 30 May that the 2012 bill is substantially similar to the previous bill presented to the House on 11 November in that only minor technical amendments were made. In fact, the only changes, according to the director-general, are the amendment of the date 2011 to 2012 and at section 40C(2) of the amendment bill, where one word was removed and four inserted. But despite the uncontentious nature of the bill, and given that Labor originally drafted it, it has remained significantly in tact in this initial draft. So why has it received so much public attention? This is an interesting question. When the minister introduced the amendment bill again on 17 May, I was interested in why there was no acknowledgement of the fact that it had been introduced into the House previously by the former Labor government. I note that tonight the minister has made mention of and acknowledged the fact that this bill had actually been drafted and introduced by the former Labor government. It was peculiar, particularly considering the minister had sat in the chamber during the 53rd Parliament, when it was introduced, and would have known this to be the case. In comparing the former bill and the current bill, I found that not only were the bills the same but so, too, was the explanatory speech delivered by the new minister—an almost picture perfect replica of the former minister’s speech. Nine words out of 747 words stand out as being different. I have marked up a copy of both for the information of the House. I table it tonight. Tabled paper: Extract (pp 90 and 91) from Hansard of 17 May 2012 [1031]. The first time the member assumed the auspicious position as minister in the first LNP government in Queensland and rose from the ministerial leather to introduce her first bill to this House, did she take the opportunity to sketch out her government’s vision for the arts? Did the new minister, 1880 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012 having sat in this chamber for a term holding shadow portfolio responsibilities, use this opportunity to articulate for the House and for Queenslanders the importance of the arts sector in Queensland? Did the minister stand and commit her government to maintaining or growing the burgeoning cultural tourism sector that has been growing in Queensland over the past 10 years? No. What the minister did was stand up in this House and parrot a plagiarised speech. The minister responsible for the administration of Crown copyright and intellectual property in Queensland stood in this House and delivered a copied speech. The minister, who has already racked up $324,000 on staffing and support for herself in her new role as minister, with a further allocation of $1.5 million in the coming financial year, could not manage to write or personalise a speech of her own. And what did the minister responsible for copyright do? Did she resign? Did she take her own ministerial staff to task for this? Did she admit the mistake was a failure by her and her ministerial office? Did she, as the Premier would have her do, harden up, cop it and get on with the job? Of course not. The minister followed her own leader’s example on this one: she blamed a public servant. The minister had the department put up a sacrificial lamb. And having identified that sacrificial lamb, what did she then do? What would any good LNP minister do? The same thing they have been doing since they assumed government earlier this year: she sacked the public servant. The minister’s performance reminded me very much of the Milli Vanilli concert back in the 1980s. You went there, you could see the lips moving and you liked what you heard, but later you found out that it was not their words. And didn’t you feel ripped off? As does the arts community. If the minister had done this in the lecture hall for university assessment she would have been kicked out of the course. If the minister had published it as a journalist, she would have been likely to lose her job. And if it was done within the arts, the minister would have been branded a fraud, her reputation would have been shattered and she would have most likely faced legal action from whoever’s work she had copied. So I did wonder why the minister missed this opportunity—her first opportunity—to rise in this House and make her first contribution as the minister unique, personal, meaningful and a prelude to her continuing contribution as a competent minister of this government. The Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection could get up in this House and introduce a bill drafted by the former Labor minister but deliver a unique speech of his own. Why could that minister articulate a vision and an agenda for his portfolio, even when introducing a Labor bill, but the Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts could not? Fundamentally, it comes down to talent—and talented this minister is not. The best thing this minister can do is to make room for someone on the back bench who has far more talent than she does. Clearly, the member for Nanango not only has the smarts but also the personality to be the minister for the arts. I know the member for Gympie would give it a red-hot go. Do you know what? I do not think the arts community would care about the speeding fines. Ms BATES: I rise to a point of order. On relevance, this is a very narrow bill in scope. The member for South Brisbane is so far off the bill she probably cannot even remember what it is about. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Krause): Order! The member for South Brisbane is addressing the introductory speech for the bill. I ask you to stay on topic for the second reading speech. Ms TRAD: Yes, I am talking about the plagiarism of the explanatory speech when the minister introduced this bill. The arts community would probably find the speeding fines intriguing. Some smart playwright would probably have enough initiative to make an incredibly dramatic, sometimes poignant, but, ultimately, a fast paced play about the member for Gympie’s first ministerial term. But it would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to reflect on the dismissal of the former deputy director-general of arts, Ms Shane Rowlands, who took the fall for the minister’s own shortcomings. I table a Courier-Mail article dated 30 May, which outlines Ms Rowlands’ dismissal. Tabled paper: Article from the Courier-Mail, dated 30 May 2012, titled ‘Arts boss Shane Rowlands sacked one day after gaffe’ [1032]. I would like to put on the record my deepest thanks to Ms Rowlands for her passionate work in the field of arts. She has been a strong advocate for the arts for many years and was working in the department when the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill was first formulated. Ms Rowlands has made an outstanding contribution to the Queensland Public Service in various areas over 10 years. I want it recorded in this House that Shane Rowlands was an absolute professional with a degree of intelligence and capability far beyond the rudimentary approach of those opposite. It is clear that Ms Rowlands’ drive, enthusiasm, accountability and ethical mind was not welcomed by this government and, indeed, by the minister. Mr WATTS: I rise to a point of order. I would like a ruling on relevance, please. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Toowoomba North, there is no point of order. The member for South Brisbane is addressing the introductory speech and is relevant to the second reading. Ms TRAD: In relation to accountability, it is quite clear that this bill relates to the governance arrangements and accountability of the foundation committee. That is why it is incorporating it into statute. But when it comes to accountability, it is really clear that there is one rule for the LNP and one 12 Sep 2012 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 1881 rule for others. Obviously, this government prefers to sack people indiscriminately, as has been the case with tens of thousands of public servants, or make individuals the scapegoat for ministerial mistakes, which was the case in this instance. When it comes to employing people on the public payroll, we know that it is done on the basis of nepotism or on the basis of which LNP mate is next off the rank. I table for the House the LNP Cando action: a Public Service to serve Queensland. Tabled paper: Document titled ‘LNP Cando Action: A public service to serve Queensland’ [1033]. I wish to particularly draw to the attention of members of the House the following extract— A CanDo LNP Government will encourage the public service to return to a culture of frank and fearless advice from a professional and permanent public service... Ms BATES: I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, the shadow minister’s comments about the Public Service have absolutely no relevance to this bill, which is a very narrow bill in scope, and which she has strayed off on many occasions already. I ask you to bring her back to the relevance of the bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Krause): Order! Thank you, Minister. Member for South Brisbane, I have allowed you some latitude to speak about the introductory speech. The bill is a bill for particular purposes and I will ask you to direct your further comments to those particular purposes. Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. As previously outlined, the current board will be vested with the power to establish the foundation and determine membership size and conditions of membership, with at least two current board members being members of the foundation as well in order to provide a streamlined communication process between the foundation and the board; the name, constitution and procedures for the committee; and to delegate its powers to the foundation committee. The recruitment of the new foundation members will be undertaken by the board, as outlined by the director-general, Mr Reed, in the public hearing. But I would point out that he also stated that the government is in a position to be able to determine ultimately who is appointed to the board or the committee. I encourage the minister to appoint future individuals to the foundation committee based on merit and their experience rather than the political leanings or jobs for the boys tactics that would seem to be the norm from those opposite. Upon the parliamentary committee’s recommendations, the minister has further circulated amendments in her name in relation to the bill. I congratulate the minister for allowing this bill to, firstly, go to the committee and then for accepting some of its recommendations before the bill is voted upon. The amendments circulated by the minister allow for the board to define its own name and set its own conditions for membership of the foundation committee. Those recommendations enable the foundation committee to have its own form of autonomy while still linked to the Art Gallery board. I welcome those amendments. It would be remiss of me not to include in my contribution to this debate mention of the significant efforts of the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees. As the shadow minister for arts and the member for South Brisbane, I understand the significance of what culture brings to our society. The Queensland Art Gallery and the Gallery of Modern Art, which are administered by the Queensland Art Gallery Act and which subsequently are governed by the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees, have worked hard to improve the state’s cultural assets, to develop the state’s collection and to provide a truly modern and interactive experience for patrons, allowing individuals to engage with art and culture in a modern and unique way. The success of their approach is evident in the outstanding performance measurements outlined in yesterday’s budget. It is clear from the record number of visitors to the Queensland Museum, GoMA, the Queensland Art Gallery and the Queensland Performing Arts Centre—all of which are recording more than one million visitors annually—that there is a real desire, a real hunger for a strong and vibrant arts sector in Queensland. Additionally, cultural tourism has been growing in Queensland and at last measure accounted for more than $50 million of the Queensland economy. Queensland and Brisbane has emerged as a national cultural leader. Exhibitions of international renown have been and are being exhibited here in Brisbane as exclusive blockbusters, including the current Portrait of Spain: Masterpieces from the Prado, Picasso, Valentino, Warhol, the Paris Opera Ballet, the Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art series—now in its seventh season—and Mummy: Secrets of the Tomb. But as the mother of young children, I have to say that what I love the most about the Queensland arts community is the educative element to much of their endeavours, which focused on young children. I remember taking my family to see the Kusama exhibit at the Queensland Gallery of Modern Art. Children of all ages loved the coloured stickers, which they were able to plaster across a once-white room equipped with chairs, tables, benches, TVs and even a working piano, all in the name of art. There was also Warhol’s silver clouds and the surrealism collage activities. These activities and exhibitions have been enjoyed by mothers and children—in fact, by many Queenslanders—across the south-east corner and throughout the state when on regional tour. Gone are the days when art was merely paintings on the wall. Art, especially modern art, can be interactive, which allows for all generations to engage in this wonderful culture. Ideally, the foundation committee would be comprised of people who understand this and who endeavour to replicate it in the coming years. 1882 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

Consequently, I would like to put on record my appreciation of the current and former members of the board of trustees. Without their work, without their leadership and without their vision, the Queensland arts sector would not have the vibrancy and international prominence that it currently enjoys. They are Professor John Hay AC, immediate past chairperson; Tim Fairfax, who is taking up the position of interim chairman of the National Gallery of Australia; Dr Amanda Bell; Margie Fraser; John Lobban; Avril Quaill; Rick Wilkinson; David Williams; and Peter Young AM. I also put on record my appreciation of the executive management team: Mr Tony Elwood, who is now the new director of the National Gallery of Victoria—Tony’s love of the arts is infectious, his leadership compelling and his capacity is limitless; Ms Suhanya Raffel, the acting director of the Art Gallery and GoMA; Andrew Clark, who is a former constituent of mine who has followed Tony Elwood to the National Gallery of Victoria; and Ms Celestine Doyle. Through the leadership and stewardship of those mentioned, along with all staff and volunteers who work within the two precincts, the Queensland Art Gallery and GoMA have become the most visited arts precinct in the country with more than 1.563 million people attending the galleries last financial year and 67 regional experiences throughout the state. Although some members of the current board and leadership team are leaving, I am sure that the individuals who take their place will continue the positive work that has already occurred in the art space to allow the Queensland Art Gallery and the Queensland Gallery of Modern Art to continue to shine. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Professor Susan Street who has recently been appointed the chairperson of the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees. Professor Street is currently the Executive Director of QUT precincts and the former Executive Dean of Creative Industries Faculty at QUT. I have no doubt that Professor Street will bring her wealth of experience and understanding of the arts to this position. I have been impressed with her analysis and contribution conveyed through the media today. In addition, I would like to congratulate Mr Philip Bacon AM who has been appointed as a member of the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees. Mr Bacon possesses a wealth of arts information as the founder of Philip Bacon Galleries in the early seventies and has sat on many boards including Opera Queensland. I congratulate both Professor Street and Mr Bacon on their appointments to the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees and wish them both well for their future. I would like to thank the Education and Innovation Committee and in particular the chairperson, the member for Burdekin, for allowing me to be present during the public hearing undertaken on Wednesday, 30 May of this year. The committee hearing was undertaken in a timely and orderly fashion and I thank the Director-General of the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Mr Phil Reed; Deputy Director-General, Programming and Corporate Services at the Queensland Art Gallery, Mr Andrew Clark; and Ms Tanzer, Principal Legal and Governance Advisor at Arts Queensland for their informative briefings and answers to the committee’s questions. Finally I would like to thank the staff of the Education and Innovation Committee: Ms Watson, research director, Ms Booth, principal research officer and Hansard for their assistance on the day. The Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012 is uncontentious and it is clear it makes sense. It makes as much sense as the government funding a literary awards program for the people of Queensland, but we know that this government and this minister do not agree with this position. The defunding of the Premier’s Literary Awards in the Year of Reading has captured the attention of many people outside Queensland and it has been roundly condemned by the arts community locally and further afield. Many Queenslanders and Australians understand the importance of such an awards program. Ms BATES: I rise to a point of order. Again I ask you to rule on relevance. The literary awards are not funded out of the arts department and certainly have absolutely nothing to do with this bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ruthenberg): Order! Member for South Brisbane, please refrain from referring to matters not relating to this bill Ms TRAD: Many Queenslanders and Australians understand the importance of such creativity and writing and awards programs that recognise as much, particularly ones that revere literacy, ideas, creativity and, ultimately, humanity. Regardless, this year we know that the community rallied and put together one of the best awards programs for literacy in this state. Budgets are about priorities and yesterday’s budget states clearly that the arts is not a priority for this government. The fact that the Premier has given the minister portfolio responsibility for the arts proves this beyond doubt. It is interesting to note that the performance of the minister to date will be judged and her debut performance as a minister in this parliament will be recorded as a complete and utter flop and a complete and utter fraud. Having said that, I do commend this Labor bill to the House. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (9.04 pm): As chairman of the Education and Innovation Committee I am very happy to support the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012. That the shadow minister should be using this platform to personally attack the minister is disgraceful. All we have seen is a totally vitriolic attack. At no stage has this bill been hidden under the carpet or pretended that it was not a bill that was lodged last year. Of course it was lodged last year. Trying to make out that 12 Sep 2012 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 1883 this was a bill that the LNP has pretended did not exist before is ridiculous. I imagine that the arts community would be quite offended that their shadow minister would use this chamber as a political platform. The Education and Innovation Committee was established by resolution of the Legislative Assembly on 17 May this year. This committee comprises both government and non-government members. The Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012 was introduced to the parliament and referred to the committee by the honourable Ros Bates, Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts on that day, 17 May 2012, with the committee setting a reporting date for 11 June 2012. I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of the Finance and Administration Committee of the previous parliament which had commenced examining an earlier version of this bill. Ms Bates: Who was on that committee? Mrs MENKENS: I will take that interjection from the minister. She was on that committee so she knows all about that bill. That the FAC had run a public consultation process on this particular bill meant that our committee could focus on gaining an understanding of the technical aspects of the bill as well as the policy outcomes it aims to achieve within the time allowed. The Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012 is specifically designed to regularise the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation which, as we know, is the fundraising arm of the Queensland Art Gallery. The purpose of the foundation is to attract and manage donations and bequests to the Queensland Art Gallery. At present the foundation is run by a council. It has previously operated as a separate entity from the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees, the board, which is a statutory body established to manage the gallery. As an unincorporated body the legal status of the council has been unclear and has created a number of potential issues. This bill will enable the board to establish a committee to run the foundation’s activity under power delegated from the board. This is the most appropriate means of clarifying the legal status of the foundation. Establishing the foundation will also address a number of potential issues, including clarifying that the foundation is a charitable body; ensuring that private ancillary funds, the key source of funds donated to the foundation, can make donations to the foundation; ensuring that the foundation committee members, like board members, are protected from any civil liability for any act done or omission made honestly and without negligence when they are carrying out the functions of the foundation committee as delegated by the board; and also clarifying the relationship between the board and the foundation. This bill will allow the establishment of a structure in which the board has authority over the foundation committee and will provide mechanisms to support that authority. In our examination of the bill, the committee considered the application of fundamental legislative principles and concluded that they were appropriately applied in this legislation. As a background to this, a previous version of the bill, the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2011, was introduced to the 53rd parliament on 29 November 2011 and was referred to the previous finance and administration committee, the FAC. The FAC had not completed its report back to the House at the dissolution of parliament on 19 February this year, at which time that bill lapsed. The Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill examined by the current Education and Innovation Committee is essentially the same bill as previously considered. In summing up, the committee has made five recommendations. They are that the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill be passed; that the terms of appointment to the foundation committee reflect the terms of appointment of board members; that the board be required to decide the name and membership conditions and endorse the constitution for the foundation committee; that consideration be given to ensuring there is capacity to terminate the appointment of a member of the foundation committee if that member was found to have breached section 40G or 40H of the Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987 in respect of conflicts of interest; and that the minister clarifies what reporting obligations would be placed on the foundation committee, including and in addition to annual reporting requirements. The committee is very pleased that the minister has accepted those recommendations and I thank the minister most sincerely for the very succinct explanation in her acceptance of those particular recommendations and how they will apply within the legislation. The bill will change the governance arrangements for the Queensland Art Gallery’s fundraising and funds management. At present, its legal status is irregular in that it is not established under an act, or as a trust, or by any other method of establishing a statutory or incorporated body. The Queensland Art Gallery is currently managed by a board of trustees that was established under the Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987. The Queensland Art Gallery Foundation was established to attract donations and bequests to benefit the Art Gallery, its constitution stating that ‘the objects of the foundation shall be generally to assist the trustees to maintain, improve and develop the state collection’. The intent of the bill is to regularise the status of the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation and to limit restrictions on the foundation’s ability to receive and deal with donations and bequests. Private ancillary funds are the major source of donations to the foundation and such funds are restricted to donating to charitable organisations. On Wednesday 30 May 2012, at a public briefing on the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012, Mr Phillip Reed, the director-general of the 1884 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, stated that the foundation has been highly successful in achieving its objectives, with over 1,400 members and $75 million in donations and other moneys being raised since its inception in 1979. Each year the foundation receives donations, bequests and gifts of art works from private and corporate donors, and over $2 million was received in 2010-11, and it also conducts major fundraising. The foundation provides funds to the board for the acquisition of art works and money also goes to support educational and public programs, including children’s and regional programs in association with major exhibitions. Art works acquired through the foundation represent more than one-third of the gallery’s collection and include works by major artists such as Ian Fairweather, William Robinson, Margaret Olley, Fred Williams, Lloyd Rees and Norah Heysen. At present, the foundation conducts its fundraising donations and bequest functions under the governance of a council. As an unincorporated body, the legal status of the council, including whether or not it is a charitable institution and its relationship to the Art Gallery board of trustees, the board, are not clear. These matters were raised by the Auditor-General in a private report to the board in 2007-08, identifying the current arrangements as high risk and recommending that the legal status of the foundation be clarified. He also noted that the foundation council appeared to have more powers than the board and this would not be appropriate. That report recommended this historical issue be addressed, which is what the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill will do. This bill will align governance arrangements for Queensland Art Gallery legislation with other Australian jurisdictions. In assessing this, the model provided for the bill follows that used by the National Gallery of Victoria, which is the most successful of other jurisdictions in terms of fundraising. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ruthenberg): Order! Members, please keep your conversations down. I can hardly hear the member speaking. Mrs MENKENS: The board is a statutory entity established under the Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987. As such, it is appointed by the Governor in Council and it is a body corporate that represents the state. The foundation council is not clearly established as a legal entity. It has been carrying out its functions under an uncertain legal status. These functions involve significant amounts of funds. The Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987 will be amended to extend the power of the board to include the development of the gallery’s collection. The act will allow the board to delegate this power to the foundation committee for the purpose of performing these functions. The amendment will also remove references to redundant entities such as the Queensland Art Gallery society. The amendments also provide that the board is a charitable institution, ensuring that taxation arrangements relevant to donations to charitable institutions will apply, which is extremely important. The amendments to the act will see the foundation’s function undertaken by a new committee that has a clear legal status as a defined committee of the board acting under a delegation of power from the board. It will make clear that the board controls the foundation. The act, as it stands now, allows the board to establish and delegate its powers to a committee, but that committee can consist only of board members. The amendment will allow a new committee, the foundation committee, to be established including people who are non-board members, but the foundation committee must include at least two board members. Foundation committee members are to be appointed by the board. A quorum of the foundation committee will be the majority of members, including both of the members who are also members of the board. This arrangement supports the respective roles and responsibilities of the board and the foundation committee, making clear the board’s authority and the delegation of power from it to the foundation committee. Enabling the board to establish a committee to manage the activities of the foundation, with features including a clear relationship to the board, was recommended to be the most appropriate means of clarifying the legal status of the foundation. This arrangement makes unlikely any conflict of interest arising between the board and its foundation committee. A further safeguard to the board’s authority is offered by the fact that the inclusion of clause 7 in the bill, which will be new section 40E of the amended act, provides that, in exercising the powers delegated to it by the board, the foundation committee is subject to the written direction of the board and the board may decide how the foundation committee conducts its business.The committee gave consideration to the term of appointment to the foundation committee and developed a view that it would be beneficial to align the terms of those appointments with those of the board, given that members are appointed by that particular board. This seems appropriate given the nature of the relationship between the foundation committee and the board. In summing-up, the committee recommended that the terms of appointment to the foundation committee reflect the terms of appointment of board members. The committee discussed the importance of ensuring that foundation committee members were adequately protected under the law to the extent required to enable them to fulfil their functions. There was the concern that without adequate protection it would be difficult to attract people to foundation positions. The Education and Innovation Committee felt that this protection must be balanced with the need to protect the assets managed by the foundation committee under the board’s delegated authority. 12 Sep 2012 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 1885

To this end, the bill provides that failure by a foundation member to comply with the following rules regarding a personal material interest in a matter being considered by the foundation committee will result in them being disqualified from voting, being barred from voting on a proposed resolution under subsection 2, being excluded in any related resolution considered by the foundation committee and being banned from any decision by the foundation committee, and will attract a penalty of 100 penalty units. Failure to disclose a direct or indirect interest in a matter before the foundation committee by a foundation committee member will attract a penalty of 100 penalty units as well. The provision for penalties to apply where a foundation committee member does not disclose a potential conflict of interest or further votes on a matter in which they have a material personal interest, unless the foundation committee resolves otherwise as provided for under the new sections 40G and 40H, were strongly supported by our committee. In fact, our committee had some discussion about whether the penalties proposed—currently $10,000 for each offence—are sufficient. The committee suggests that it is important there be capacity to terminate the appointment of a foundation committee member should they breach those conflict of interest provisions and become subject to the prescribed penalties. With regard to foundation committee reporting, the annual reports of the Queensland Art Gallery include both the gallery and the foundation at present. Regular reports from the foundation committee to the board are an important consideration given the extent of the funds involved and the fact that the legal status of the new committee is being changed to enhance the foundation’s ability to perform its financially focused functions. This bill will clarify, and provide for, the legal status of the foundation. The committee was keen to ensure that regular reporting by the foundation committee on financial and other activity is provided for in the amended legislation; hence recommendation 5 that the minister clarifies what reporting obligations would be placed on the foundation committee, including and in addition to the annual reporting requirement, and I thank the minister for enlarging on that. In regularising the status of the foundation, the committee sought and received advice from the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts. The committee also considered the application of fundamental legislative principles and concluded that they were appropriately applied in this legislation. The passing of this bill will not only regularise the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation but provide more effective legislation, including the strengthening of accountability for both the board and the foundation committee. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts for the assistance that it has given the committee and, in particular, for the very succinct briefing that it provided at the committee’s very first meeting. This greatly assisted all of us as members to understand what the bill does. I also thank all members of the committee and in particular those who are new members of parliament. Committee members have taken up their role with enthusiasm and a strong sense of responsibility. I particularly note that the committee’s recommendations in respect of this bill were unanimous. I commend this legislation to the House. Mr SHUTTLEWORTH (Ferny Grove—LNP) (9.22 pm): I rise in the House today to give my very brief but very relevant support to the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012. The primary aim of the bill is to provide the Art Gallery Board of Trustees the capacity to establish a committee to undertake the important function of the foundation in raising funds, attracting donations and bequeathed funds. The foundation, first established in 1979, has been highly effective in attracting over 1,400 members and over $75 million in funds, used to maintain and further develop the facilities and increase our state’s collection of works. To ensure that corporate governance and best practice is maintained throughout the Art Gallery board, it is proposed that the foundation structure is changed to become a committee of the board and therefore wholly accountable through the board. Further, there is an amendment which will allow the board to establish a committee with at least two existing board members and may extend membership to include foundation members or other non-board members. The financial benefit this is likely to deliver at this point is impossible to quantify. However, with my experience in building business benefits through networking and the establishment of extended associations, I believe the proposed model will almost certainly deliver substantial benefit to the Art Gallery board and the foundation. To ensure the structure of the committee can attract the best persons to fulfil the functions of the committee, this bill proposes that the committee members will be afforded protection from civil liability. To protect the public of Queensland, the bill also proposes that the liability for legal borrowing by the board members will be extended to the committee. In accordance with other best practices, the bill also addresses the need for committee members to declare interests should they conflict with matters under consideration of the board or the committee. As this bill also proposes that the board is recognised as a charitable institution, I feel confident that the consequences of its implementation will be the tangible increase in the level of benefactors and donors. I am certain this will occur as a result of the perception throughout the community that the 1886 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012 normal activities of the committee such as fundraising activities will be undertaken and reported in isolation of the Art Gallery board. This isolation will ensure that the transparency of the committee activities will give potential donors confidence in the appropriate allocation of their funds, thereby ensuring a higher probability of success into the future. There are numerous indications of the benefit derived from the foundation and the generosity of donors such as the Tim Fairfax Family Foundation. The gallery recently undertook an extensive regional outreach program, which has enabled the gallery to engage with regional and remote Queensland communities. The community engagement was significant, with almost 4,500 people attending the Kids’ APT on Tour program, over 4,000 attending the 21st Century Kids tour, 54 regional locations participating in the Kids on Tour and over 11,000 school students attending the Surrealism: The Poetry of Dreams exhibition. I was fortunate enough recently to have attended the opening of the Portrait of Spain recently and this exquisite display has been presented in a children’s publication, Portrait of Spain for Kids. This publication exposes our children to the most significant artists represented within the Prado Museum. It is publications such as this that are only made possible through the good works of the foundation. Copies of this publication have been distributed to 1,038 Queensland schools and 425 independent schools throughout the state. I, like most Queenslanders, look forward to the Art Gallery’s continued success and look forward to witnessing an improved harvest by the foundation committee in the seasons ahead. In closing, I would like to congratulate the Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts on the preparation of this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ruthenberg): Order! Just before I call the next speaker, I would ask members while they are speaking among themselves to keep it to a low murmur. It is getting difficult to hear the speakers. I call the member for Logan. Mr PUCCI (Logan—LNP) (9.26 pm): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you know they will not be able to hear me speak! It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak in support of the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill. This bill will empower the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees to take the much needed steps in establishing a committee designed to administer the activities of the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation. The outcomes of this bill will generate positive results not only for the Queensland Art Gallery but for our state as a whole and its commitment to enriching and promoting the visual artistic displays that are exhibited for our broader community to appreciate. This bill I believe also represents a key element to our government’s action plan to get this state back on track by having a clear-cut administrative process free from the bureaucratic entanglement that currently exists. After extensive consultation with the Queensland Art Gallery, this bill will bring a stable platform from which the committee, under the delegated authority of the board, can exercise fair, accountable and pragmatic governance. With this delegation of authority, the committee can shape and develop procedures that will better serve the day-to-day operations of the Art Gallery. This bill will seek to clarify the status of the foundation as a charitable body, ensure that the foundation committee members are protected from civil liability when acting on behalf of the board and, finally, clarify the relationship between the board and the foundation. Though protecting committee members from civil liability in the course of their duties as directed by the board, this legislation does not confer immunity from proceedings or prosecutions without adequate justifications, again returning accountability to institutions whilst improving the operational freedom that so many of them deserve. This bill will also seek to extend the functions of the board and create greater opportunities for the committee and the foundation to develop the gallery’s collection. It will also support the foundation committee’s function in raising funds in its determination to develop the collection and displays of the gallery. This amendment also provides for equal representation of committee members, encompassing prior and current personnel. This representation will see that the gallery is administrated with a fair and proportionate committee that will undoubtedly serve with utmost professionalism. As a result of this amendment’s greater accountability through checks and balances, committee members will have the regulation needed to create more freedom to make decisions to continue the growth occurring within the gallery. This amendment will also seek to provide a clear-cut and simplistic regulation for the board to deal with both existing and future gifts, donations, bequests and legacies. I have witnessed firsthand the progressive development of art programs in Queensland, whether that is as a member of parliament or as a father of two young children progressing through our education system. Society at large does not rate art as a front-line issue, and when our state is in such a dire situation other priorities such as paying back the debt, delivering better front-line services and building a four-pillar economy for many take priority. However, I ask members to think back to when they were at school or when their children started kindergarten. One of the core learning tools used as a foundation for learning is art. While we invest both time and money and generate legislation to support tertiary education and apprenticeships, we must appropriately pay attention to supporting endearing forms of expressions within our community. 12 Sep 2012 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 1887

In May this year, I had the privilege to join my parliamentary colleagues the member for Chatsworth, Mr Steve Minnikin, and the member for Mansfield, Mr Ian Walker, at the opening of the Gallery of Modern Art, an event hosted by the Minister for Arts, the Hon. Ros Bates, which demonstrates how our government is proactive in promoting and supporting the development of art in our state, and this amendment is a tribute to those efforts. I also had the privilege to attend the opening of the contemporary woman’s exhibition in April at the Gallery of Modern Art, once again hosted by the honourable Minister for the Arts. This was a wonderful exhibition that demonstrated the unique and binding connection women artists have with our country in the contemporary art world. The future of creative visual arts in our education system is critical to developing skills amongst our youth. It also creates an environment in which our youth can constructively express their artistic talents on a canvas and not on a brick wall. Whilst our government is creating programs to encourage art programs within our schools, we must also support what many consider the central stage for such pieces of work. The Queensland Art Gallery is currently hosting the Portrait of Spain exhibition—a once- in-a-lifetime opportunity for Queenslanders to witness artistic masterpieces that would otherwise be out of reach in our corner of the world. Mr Rickuss: Member for Logan, have you been to see it? Mr PUCCI: I will take that interjection. I have been to see it. Of course I have been to see it. As I said, it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Mrs Menkens: It is magnificent. Mr PUCCI: It is magnificent. This foundation will continue to provide vital contributions to the cultural growth of our state and ensure that connections to the art community will not be lost on future generations. It is essential in not only the cultural appreciation sense of the term but, more importantly, an educational one. We need to support legislative amendments like this that preserve and foster institutions, encourage the growth of artistic development and ultimately provide the much needed legislative mechanisms for the operation of such a pivotal institution like the Queensland Art Gallery. In my electorate of Logan I hosted an art competition for my local schools where I invited all the students to provide some art for my office in the parliament and in the electorate. They had a fantastic time. The schools all put together a board. They picked out the No. 1 piece of art and submitted it. They chose the winners, and they are now hanging in our offices. Mrs Ostapovitch: It is beautiful, too. Mr PUCCI: Thank you, Freya. I want to thank the Minister for the Arts, the Hon. Ros Bates, for having afternoon tea in parliament and handing out certificates to all the students who participated. I got emails from the schools stating they could not wipe the smiles off the kids’ faces they enjoyed it so much. I want to thank Madam Speaker for coming out and saying hello during the private guided tour I gave them. That is why it is imperative to implement appropriate legislative amendments in order to maximise the operational efficiency of the Queensland Art Gallery and allow the board of trustees and foundation committee to have the authority and regulation to achieve real progress in securing the future of art in Queensland. With new legislative markers supporting the core business operations of the gallery and the establishment of the foundation committee to reduce red tape and increase efficiency, the economic and, most of all, educational benefits will enrich the lives of Queenslanders for decades to come. This amendment once again will allow the board and foundation to take proactive steps under strict legislative guidelines by which a direct by-product will be the international recognition of the Queensland Art Gallery—a booster to the local economy and the exposure of world-class artwork to every demographic that makes our great state. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Professor Susan Street on her appointment as the chair of the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees. With Professor Street’s strong depth of experience and strong supportive legislation, the Queensland Art Gallery will without a doubt to continue to grow as an asset for all Queenslanders. I want to congratulate the minister on the work she has done on this bill, thank the chair for her leadership on the committee, and thank all the members who participated in the committee and its staff for their work in bringing this bill to the House. It gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Mr CHOAT (Ipswich West—LNP) (9.35 pm): I rise to speak briefly to the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012. It is a pleasure to speak to this bill as I am mindful of the growth in participation and appreciation for the arts in my electorate of Ipswich West. It is definitely no secret that I am proud of my electorate and will talk it up at every opportunity—a trait I share with the mayor of Ipswich, Councillor Paul Pisasale. Indeed, the changes to the City of Ipswich and the Somerset region include a significant increase in awareness of the arts and our great local artists. The galleries and other public spaces within the region are home to some very fine examples of art and culture. 1888 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

I could not get up and speak to any part of this portfolio without giving a plug to the Workshops Rail Museum in North Ipswich. What a great place it is. It certainly has become a centre of culture for my electorate, particularly the Ipswich parts. I would say to all honourable members, not only those who have young children, to come along. It is a great place. I recently had the pleasure of representing our most excellent Minister for the Arts, Ros Bates, at an opening of an exhibition called I’ve been Working on the Railway. Most honourable members would know that I absolutely love the railway. It was great to represent the minister and mix with some good old railway people, and I had a blast. That exhibition was really interesting and it is relevant to some of the things we have spoken about in this House today. Mr Bleijie: Thomas the Tank Engine? Mr CHOAT: No, it was not Thomas, but Thomas is there quite regularly. It was not Bob the Builder, either. It was about the role that our Indigenous people and South Sea Islanders have played in building the heritage and culture of the railway we have left in Queensland today. It was great, and I have been back. A government member interjected. Mr CHOAT: ‘Rachel the rail wrecker’ was in the chair when it was sold. I will take that interjection. Recently I was presented with pieces of art created by local artists for display in my community office. Mr Ian Foster of Lowood has painted for me a beautiful painting of a pair of rainbow lorikeets, and I have the most striking piece of Aboriginal art by artist Maxine Bennetts, who is affectionately known as ‘Macca’. Honourable members know that I have a history in ornothology, to put it correctly. This contemporary piece of art is called Pigeon Patterns and depicts the movement of the pigeon in flight, represented in traditional Aboriginal style. It takes pride of place in my office, and I look forward to showing this to the honourable minister when she next visits my electorate of Ipswich West. Aboriginal art holds a significant place in Queensland’s arts culture, and I know this bill will provide for the continued status of Aboriginal and other contemporary art styles in the state. The bill is important to the Queensland arts sector and to our culture as it will shape our approach to the arts in many respects. Under the bill, committee members will be sought with skills and experience in finance, business and philanthropy who are well-respected members of the community and who are able to advocate for the gallery and use their community networks to encourage philanthropy and wider support. The board of the gallery will be responsible for appointments to the foundation committee, with at least two committee members drawn from the board. Nominees for appointment are currently being considered by the board. The board will retain the power to terminate any appointments under section 25 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954. The Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987 provides that a person is not able to be appointed to the board if that person is not eligible to manage a corporation or if the person is convicted of certain offences. Accordingly, formal checks of board members who are nominated as foundation committee members will be undertaken for criminal history, bankruptcy and eligibility to manage corporations along with scrutiny of the usual personal particulars statement and a search of the Lobbyist Register. While there are no legislative requirements to undertake criminal history checks for eligibility for appointment of non-board members to the foundation committee, they are required to complete a personal particulars statement and to disclose details of any conflicts of interests and criminal history. These processes give certainty that only fit and proper persons will be appointed Currently, foundation council members are not remunerated for their work on the council and it is not proposed to seek remuneration for foundation committee members at this time. I think they will get reward enough for their participation so they do not need any remuneration as such. Under the proposed arrangements, the policy ‘Remuneration of Part-time Chairs and Members of Government Boards, Committees and Statutory Authorities’ will apply, so fees may in future be paid to committee members in accordance with these guidelines. I am sure the opportunities to contribute to the arts through committee membership are rewarding enough and that members will be more concerned with the future of the arts in our great state. Under the bill, foundation committee members are obligated to disclose if they have a direct or indirect interest in a matter being considered by the committee. Committee members with a material personal interest in a matter being considered by the foundation committee must not vote on the matter or otherwise take part in any decision of the committee in relation to the matter. This bill provides for the protection of the integrity of the board and the foundation committee who will in turn provide for the future of the arts through their work. I am certain that we will see great things for the arts in Queensland through this legislation and the great work of Minister Bates’s department. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (9.41 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012. As the member for South Brisbane has said this evening, this bill reflects virtually verbatim what was contained in the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2011, which lapsed when the previous parliament was prorogued. The basic premise of this bill is to enable the Queensland Art Gallery board to establish a foundation committee as a committee of the board to 12 Sep 2012 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 1889 carry out the activities of the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation. One of the most important activities to be undertaken by the foundation committee members is fundraising and encouraging philanthropy from the private sector and individuals. Philanthropy is a vital component for any public art institution. Along with government funding, it enables institutions like the Queensland Art Gallery to finance new acquisitions, mount exhibitions and run programs. In 2011, the federal government commissioned a review of philanthropy in the arts sector chaired by Harold Mitchell AC. Mr Mitchell, who was a well-credentialed businessperson with a history of involvement, presented his report in March this year. It found that throughout Australia philanthropy represented approximately 10 per cent of funding to the arts sector. In the 2009-10 financial year, it is estimated that $223 million was contributed in private philanthropy and corporate sponsorship. This is obviously a significant portion of all arts funding. But the review found that one of the main inhibitors to greater philanthropy and sponsorship was a lack of resources for institutions to pursue philanthropy. I am glad to see that this bill has the potential to allow the Queensland Art Gallery to marshal more resources to encourage philanthropy. By allowing more people to become members of the Queensland Art Gallery foundation committee, it means more people can turn their attention to soliciting donations. It is rare that significant donations come unsolicited. Often it takes time and effort to encourage people to donate. It also takes a lot of effort to attract corporate sponsors and they understandably want to receive recognition for their generosity. Having more people available to lobby individuals and companies will make this a lot easier. Relationships matter when it comes to fundraising and philanthropy. I hope the changes resulting from this bill will allow the Queensland Art Gallery board to recruit enthusiastic people with pre-existing relationships with potential benefactors and sponsors. I also hope that it gives them the ability to recruit people with existing fundraising expertise to act along— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ruthenberg): Order! Members, I can hardly hear the member speaking and she is right near me. Can you please keep your conversations to a very low murmur. Mrs MILLER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. They are so rude. I hope the changes resulting from this bill will allow the Queensland Art Gallery board to recruit enthusiastic people with pre-existing relationships with potential benefactors and sponsors. I also hope it gives them the ability to recruit people with existing fundraising expertise to act alongside people already on the board and already employed by the Queensland Art Gallery. On this side of the House, we in the Labor Party and the Labor movement have a deep and longstanding commitment to the arts. In fact, Andrew Vickers of the CFMEU’s mining and energy division has proudly supported in my electorate the Redbank Plains State High School art awards. Art in the Labor movement has pride. For example, on Labour Day the ETU has wonderful T-shirts with great art on them and we are all proud of that. I am sure in the next Labour Day march—whenever that might be— Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mrs MILLER: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me tell you: you will all love the T-shirts that are going to be talking about all of you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bundamba, please address your comments through the chair. Mrs MILLER: Yes. That will be fine. Can I just say this, Mr Deputy Speaker: you might change the date but you will never change the passion. I am also pleased to see that every member of this government does not understand anything to do with the arts sector. I am confident though that some of them may understand symbolism. It was clearly meant to be an important symbol that one of the first cuts this temporary Premier made was the scrapping of the Premier’s Literary Awards. This was not a decision that the Premier made reluctantly. It was a decision that the Premier relished. He loved it— sticking the boot into writers. How low can you go. The initial acts of a new government— Ms BATES: I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mrs MILLER: Oh, here she goes. Ms BATES: It is a point of order. That means you get to sit. Mrs MILLER: I know. I will, in my time. Ms BATES: Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is that this bill is for particular purposes. It has nothing to do with the Premier’s Literary Awards and I ask that you get the member for Bundamba to return to the bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bundamba, the long title of the bill is Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill and I ask you to keep your comments within that title. 1890 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

Mrs MILLER: It is very intriguing that this arts minister, sadly, cannot defend the Premier’s Literary Awards decision. What we find on this side of the House is that the Premier obviously thinks— Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bundamba, please address your comments through the chair. Mrs MILLER: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. The minister over there and the Premier, who is sitting behind her in the back row—where he belongs—obviously think that arts are for the elites— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bundamba, I have asked you several times to address your comments through the chair. Mrs MILLER: The arts enrich people’s lives. They give people the ability to see the world in a different light, to challenge reigning ideas and to express themselves in new and exciting ways. The Queensland Art Gallery complex is the best patronised art gallery in Australia. This shows that Queenslanders know the value of the arts—even if their government does not. I am, however, pleased to see that the Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts is doing her very best to preserve an important artistic tradition known as the pastiche. A pastiche is a literary technique which openly imitates the work of another earlier artist. Of course, when the minister introduced this bill to the House, her entire speech was a pastiche dedicated to the former minister for the arts. Unfortunately for the minister, it is fairly rare for a pastiche to be more highly regarded than the work on which it is based. Nevertheless, I am glad to see the minister has such respect for her predecessor. The parrot has in effect parroted the words of a previous minister. I see that many people have actually suggested that this speech was, in fact, plagiarism. Of course— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ruthenberg): Order! Member for Bundamba, I have asked you once to please keep your comments within the long title of the bill. I am asking you again to restrict your comments to the long title of the bill. Mrs MILLER: I will. The line between pastiche and plagiarism is indistinct, but I always give people the benefit of the doubt. I am pleased to contribute to the debate on this important bill. I am also pleased to see that the policy of the previous government has been taken on board by those opposite. The changes that this bill will implement promise to substantially benefit the Queensland Art Gallery and encourage more private donations. This is good news for the people of Queensland, because more philanthropy to the Art Gallery means more programs, higher profile acquisitions and better exhibitions. Like many Queenslanders, I remain disappointed by the Premier’s and this minister’s philistine approach to the arts. They all laugh at the minister because it will not save this state. It is Labor legislation that she has nicked. She nicked it. I commend the bill to the House because it is our legislation. Mr SHORTEN (Algester—LNP) (9.51 pm): The member for Bundamba is a hard act to follow but I will have a go. I will be a bit more factual than she has been. This bill will amend the Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987 to allow the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees to establish a foundation committee, including board members and non-board members, to carry on the activities of the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation. The function of the foundation committee would be to raise funds to assist in the fulfilment of the board’s functions by, for example, encouraging gifts, donations, bequests and legacies of property for the benefit of the board; and managing and investing in property made available to the foundation committee by the board. I think it is worthwhile at this point to cover a bit of history in relation to the Queensland Art Gallery, which forms part of our world renowned Cultural Centre at South Bank, which was first opened in 1985. The Queensland Cultural Centre comprises not just the Queensland Art Gallery but also the Queensland Performing Arts Centre, the Queensland Museum, the State Library of Queensland and its newest addition, the Queensland Gallery of Modern Art—or GoMA, as it is called—which was added in 2006. These institutions collectively make up the cultural epicentre of Brisbane and Queensland as a whole. Members may or may not know that the Queensland Art Gallery is situated on the site of the old Cremorne Theatre, originally an open-air structure with seating for about 1,800 people. The current QPAC building houses the Cremorne Theatre, named in its honour. The Queensland Art Gallery, which was formerly named the Queensland National Art Gallery, was established in 1895. The inaugural collection comprised 38 pictures—many lent to the gallery—one marble bust and 70 engravings. Today the collection comprises more than 13,000 contemporary and historical Australian, Indigenous Australian and international paintings, sculptures, decorative art objects and works on paper. The Queensland Art Gallery Foundation was established in 1979 and its first work acquired was the 15th century painting, Virgin and Child with Saint James the Pilgrim, Saint Catherine and the Donor with Saint Peter by the Master of Frankfurt. To this date, more than 5,400 works of art have been acquired and more than $75 million has been raised by the foundation. The foundation has been highly successful in achieving its objectives, with over 1,400 members of which I was one for many years. As 12 Sep 2012 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 1891 an example, in 2010-11 over $2 million was received through donations, bequests or gifts of artworks from both private and corporate donors. The foundation provides funds to the board for acquisition of artworks and development of exhibitions and programs. These are, of course, dependent upon donations, returns on investments received by the foundation, the need of the gallery and artworks on the current market for purchase. All members would be aware of the current blockbuster exhibition, Portrait of Spain: Masterpieces from the Prado, which is expected to draw well over 100,000 people to the gallery. But this is just the latest in world-class exhibitions that the gallery has hosted. From Monet to Renoir and to Arthur McCubbin, Queenslanders have been able to view masterworks from some of the greatest painters from around the world right here in Brisbane. I welcome this bill and the opportunities that it enables the board of the Queensland Art Gallery to explore. I commend the minister for her stewardship of the bill through the House. I commend the bill to the House. Mr BENNETT (Burnett—LNP) (9.55 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012. I would like to acknowledge the fellow members of the Education and Innovation Committee and the assistance provided by Bernice, Emily and Carolyn. I thank the representatives from the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts for their professional contributions. This proposed bill enables the Art Gallery Board of Trustees to regularise the legal status of the existing Queensland Art Gallery Foundation. It also proposes to establish a committee to carry on the important activities of the unincorporated foundation for the benefit of all Queenslanders including those in regional Queensland. This proposed amendment is a change in governance for the foundation. The amendments will not incur any additional costs. In dealing with the Art Gallery, it was encouraging to get a real insight into the workings of the gallery. Of particular interest to me was the work in regional Queensland. The foundation was originally formed in the late seventies for the purpose of assisting the board in the management and expansion of the state collection of works of art and the facilities and operations of the Art Gallery. The foundation had a constitution from 1979, but there have been questions around the foundation’s status in a legal sense. The foundation was originally established to attract and encourage donations, gifts, bequests and other forms of assistance for the benefit of the gallery and Queensland. The committee is comfortable with the proposed amendments and safeguards to alleviate any differences in the objectives of the foundation and the board. The foundation has been successful in achieving its objectives, with nearly 1,500 members and around $75 million of donations and other monies raised since its inception. Each year the foundation receives donations, bequests and gifts of artworks from private and corporate donors, and over $2 million was received in 2010-11. The foundation provides funds to the board for the acquisition of artworks and development of exhibitions and programs. The size of programs is dependent upon donations received by the foundation, returns on investments, the needs of the gallery and the artwork available for purchase. A third of the gallery’s collection was acquired by the foundation. Some of these works include those by major artists such as Ian Fairweather, Margaret Olley, William Robinson, Fred Williams, Lloyd Rees and Nora Heysen. The foundation conducts fundraising activities at the gallery. Through the generous donations of Mr Tim Fairfax, AM, the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation was able to acquire for the gallery the artwork Ressort 2012 by Chinese/French artist Huang Yong Ping. Ressort will feature as a central work in The 7th Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art, known as APT7. The upcoming APT7 will mark the 20th anniversary since the first APT. The sculpture is a 53-metre snake skeleton which is cast from aluminium. It will spiral from the ceiling of the Queensland Art Gallery’s Water Mall. The work has been created especially for this unique space by the artist and will be the signature work. The foundation also conducts an annual appeal which obtains donations towards particular artworks. In 2011 the appeal resulted in the purchase of the work painted in 1937 by artist Peter Purves Smith. The foundation is currently governed by a council. In order to regularise its status, it is proposed that the foundation is merged into the board and that a newly created committee governs the foundation’s activities. Currently, the act allows the board to delegate its powers to a committee consisting only of board members. Amendments to the act are required to enable the board to establish a committee with broader membership consisting of both board and non-board members to carry on the activities of the foundation. This approach allows the board to retain control over the management and operations of the foundation, given the large amount of government and private funds under management, and avoids the need to create a new government body for the foundation. It is important that we have confidence and probity. The proposed amendment bill will include within the board’s functions the development of the gallery’s collection. The foundation committee will deal with any funds agreed by the board to be managed and invested by the foundation committee for its fundraising purposes. The proposed amendment bill ensures the board will have control and flexibility over the governance arrangements for the foundation committee including its composition, criteria for membership, responsibilities and meeting procedures. 1892 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

The foundation committee will include at least two board members. It may also include non-board members, allowing foundation members with the capacity to assist the foundation achieve its objectives also to be represented if the board considers that appropriate. The board will have power to delegate its powers to foundation committee members for the purpose of performing the functions of the foundation committee, which is to raise funds to assist in the outcomes of the board’s functions. The foundation committee will have the powers necessary to encourage gifts, donations, bequests and legacies of property for the benefit of the board but must not incur a debt. The bill provides that the board is a charitable institution and deems gifts to the foundation to be gifts to the board. Private ancillary funds are the major source of donations to the foundation. However, many of these private ancillary funds are restricted to donating to charitable organisations. The bill specifies that the board is a charitable organisation to ensure that private ancillary funds are able to make donations to the foundation. In terms of protection to foundation committee members, the bill will extend the protection from civil liability afforded to board members to committee members and also extend liability for illegal borrowing by board members to committee members. The bill will also extend provisions regarding board members who have an interest in matters being considered by the board to committee members who have an interest in matters being considered by the committee. The establishment of a committee of the board to undertake the activities of the foundation is the most reasonable and appropriate way to regularise the status of the foundation and to limit any restrictions on the foundation’s ability to receive and deal with donations and bequests. It also meets the preference expressed by existing donors and benefactors for the work of the foundation to be transparent. The committee reviewed the terms of appointment to the foundation committee, and the view was that this would be beneficial to align the terms of appointments to develop the state collection. The application of fundamental legislative principles was considered by the committee, and we concluded that they were appropriate in this legislation. The committee members were unanimous in their deliberations, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (10.01 pm): At the risk of being accused of plagiarism by the member for South Brisbane, I will make a contribution to the debate on the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012. The Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012 amends the Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987 to establish the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation committee as a committee of the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees. The 2007-08 Queensland Audit Office management report highlighted deficiencies in the establishment of the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation not being a legal entity in its own right. Indeed I, together with the minister, was on the Finance and Administration Committee in the 53rd Parliament that started to do some work on this particular bill. The bill proposes to amend the act in accordance with the recommendations of the Queensland Audit Office management report. The amendments to the Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987 will enable the board to: establish a committee to carry out the activities of the foundation; determine the membership and conditions of membership for the committee; determine the name, constitution and procedures for the committee; and delegate its powers to the committee. They also extend the protection from civil liability afforded to board members to committee members; extend provisions regarding board members who have an interest in matters being considered by the board to committee members who have an interest in matters being considered by the committee; include within the board’s function the development of the gallery’s collection; provide that the board is a charitable institution; deem gifts to the foundation to be gifts to the board; and deem the current council of the foundation validly appointed to facilitate its winding up. I commend the bill to the House. Mr LATTER (Waterford—LNP) (10.03 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill. As we have heard, this bill seeks to streamline the relationship between the Art Gallery Board of Trustees and the Art Gallery Foundation. The foundation does tremendous work supporting the development of the state art collection, presenting major national and international exhibitions and community based public programs including regional and children’s exhibition programs. They do this through encouraging donations, sponsorship, bequests, gifts and other forms of support for the gallery. The work the foundation does to bring exhibitions to the regions and children is particularly exciting. Formalising the ability of the Queensland Art Gallery to raise funds for the procurement of works and the ability to continue to exhibit art are absolute necessities for the enrichment of our cultural maturity and diversity in the arts. For some of us, and many of our children, the Queensland Art Gallery represents an invaluable opportunity, from time to time, to personally immerse ourselves in the fine arts. It affords an opportunity to experience in person exhibits by world renowned artists, old-world masters and even highly regarded Australian talents. This bill strengthens the Queensland Art Gallery’s ability to continue to do well into the future that which it has done so well in the past. 12 Sep 2012 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 1893

However, not everyone lives in South-East Queensland, with the easy access to the cultural precinct at South Bank and the Art Gallery and GoMA. So it is important and only fair that we take some of the works they house to the regions, even if it is just down the freeway to Logan. The last touring exhibition to the Logan Art Gallery, Contemporary Miniatures, attracted large numbers of visitors at the end of last year. This collection was selected from the Queensland Art Gallery’s fine holdings of miniature paintings from South Asia. By drawing people to these touring exhibitions and their associated workshops, the Logan Art Gallery is also able to showcase its own collection. It is through the work of the foundation that the people of Logan see these works displayed in their own gallery. It is an unfortunate reality that people living a short journey from the cultural precinct in Brisbane feel that the arts are beyond their reach. There is a real perception that art is only for an elite minority. One of the important reasons for bringing touring exhibitions to Logan is to break down this perception and show that art is for everyone. Art has the amazing dual ability to celebrate the diversity and universality of human expression. In an incredibly culturally diverse community like the Waterford electorate, art can unite people because it transcends cultural difference and captures something of what it means to be uniquely human. So it is with this in mind that I strongly support the work of the foundation in its role, supporting the galleries and bringing art to the regions. When I say that I am here to commend this bill, I am supporting the streamlining of the relationship between the board of trustees, the foundation and the galleries. On that basis I commend the bill to the House. Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (10.06 pm): Tonight I am pleased to be able to stand and contribute briefly to the debate of the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012. I commend the minister on bringing this legislation to the House. There are those opposite who claim glory but who never delivered. They promised plenty and never delivered. This amendment bill will enable the Art Gallery to establish the committee long talked about and long bragged about but never delivered. I commend the minister for bringing this forward. I am a little embarrassed about the value of the contribution by those opposite to tonight’s debate. They failed to really come to terms with what is going on here. But I will make my contribution and save my comments on those opposite to a little later. This amendment bill will enable the Queensland Art Gallery to establish a committee. The make- up of the board—the members and non-members of the board—and the work of the committee are designed to develop the Art Gallery’s collections and promote the arts. It is long overdue. The board was actually established way back in 1979 under a conservative government. Those opposite have protested about the significance of this bill and their alleged ownership of it. They had 20 years in government in which to deliver. In the three years of the previous term they did not deliver. In the first six months of LNP government our new Minister for the Arts is delivering on something so long overdue that it is embarrassing. The hypocrisy and lack of understanding of those opposite is astounding. They clearly do not get it. How do you spell hypocrisy? A-L-P. With Mr Deputy Speaker’s indulgence, I will deviate a little and comment on the Redland Art Gallery and the work that it does and the support that it gets from the local community. Ms TRAD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have ruled on relevance in relation to the short title of the bill and I ask you that you observe it in this instance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ruthenberg): Order! Member for South Brisbane, I ruled on relevance against the long title of the bill and that is what I will rule on now. I will ask the speaker to maintain his relevance to the long title of the bill. Mr DOWLING: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for your direction. The board will set up the membership, constitution and procedures. The board will have the ability to delegate powers. It will operate in almost a free market—as it should in order to get what is commonly referred to as ‘the top end of town’ to contribute to the arts and to support the arts through bequests and contributions. I am really pleased to contribute, as I said, albeit briefly to this debate. The Queensland Art Gallery board will be able to manage its own funds, gifts and bequests. I think it is worth looking at the history of this foundation. The minister in her introductory speech stated the following— The foundation was originally formed in 1979 for the purpose of assisting the board to maintain, improve and develop the state collection of works of art and the facilities and operations of the Queensland Art Gallery. Specifically, the foundation was established to attract and encourage donations, gifts, bequests and other forms of assistance for the benefit of the gallery. Over those 30 years since its inception, $75 million has been collected through donations of one form or another. That is to be commended. The foundation is very proactive. As I said, it was formed under a conservative government—not under those opposite who claim to own the arts, who claim to represent artists and the literary world. They think they own that foundation. But have they ever supported it? No. Have they ever done anything significant for it? No. Conservative governments introduced this strategy. Those opposite claim to own this legislation. Did they deliver on it? No, they did not. Clearly, they are missing the point. We learned a new word here tonight, the ‘patish’. Can I suggest that those opposite are a ‘patish’ of members. They are ‘patish’. They are shallow representatives. Mrs MILLER: I rise to a point of order. The correct pronunciation is ‘pastiche’. 1894 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bundamba, that is a frivolous point of order and I will warn you next time. Mr DOWLING: Tomato, tomato; it is all semantics and that is all the ALP is good for. With that brief contribution, I commend the bill to the House. Mr BOOTHMAN (Albert—LNP) (10.13 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012. This bill is about the creation of a new chapter for the Queensland Art Gallery. It is about extending the functions of the Queensland Art Gallery board through the acquisition of art collections and the development of a foundation committee. The bill’s primary goal is to ease the financial burden by establishing a committee that will limit the restrictions on the foundation’s ability to receive donations. This bill allows the board to retain control over the management of the foundation, giving the Queensland Art Gallery suitable powers to ensure that fundraising is undertaken in league with the direction of the art gallery’s agenda. In addition, these changes allow the board to establish the membership of the foundation, which will include two board members or nonmembers, if desired, and the conditions of membership. Furthermore, these changes provide for the naming and the constitution of the committee and the implementation of procedures for the committee through the delegation of powers. I am delighted to hear that this bill also allows the committee members the same safeguards as the board members through protection from civil liability. I wish to refer to new sections 40F, 40G and 40H, which provide protections and directions to ensure transparency in the operations of the committee. These new sections allow the board to determine how the foundation committee may conduct business while ensuring that committee members disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter being considered by the foundation committee. Furthermore, new section 40H prohibits participation by a foundation committee member who has a personal interest in a matter that is before the foundation committee. This amendment will not incur any additional costs to the taxpayer and has the potential to increase the diversity of artworks through the committee’s own fundraising abilities. In these precarious economic conditions and a massive state deficit, this bill will provide the Queensland Art Gallery with the ability to fundraise and undertake wonderful programs to showcase art to all. That can only be concluded as a major bonus for the Queensland Art Gallery. I will highlight the wonderful work that the Queensland Art Gallery has undertaken into recent months. With the generous support of the Tim Fairfax Family Foundation, the Queensland Art Gallery has been able to conduct multiple regional outreach programs for regional and remote Queensland. The first program that I would like to highlight is the Portrait of Spain for Kids. This program introduces kids to truly wonderful art dating back to the 17th century—a truly classical period in European history. The program has distributed copies to 1,038 Queensland state primary schools, 425 independent primary schools, 45 regional galleries, 20 regional venues and 20 Indigenous knowledge centres. Another fantastic program undertaken by the Queensland Art Gallery with the help of the Tim Fairfax Family Foundation is Surrealism for Kids, which was part of the Surrealism: The Poetry of Dreams exhibition. A record 54 regional Queensland venues took part in this tour, which featured activities such as interactive animated games inspired by surrealists. When thinking of surrealism I am reminded of Salvador Dali’s famous painting titled The Persistence of Memory. It is a wonderful piece of artwork that depicts the heightened senses of the human imagination, which some people on the other side seem to be very good at. Ms Trad: We all know about your imagination. Mr BOOTHMAN: That cut me. These wonderful programs bring art to schools, art to regions and art to remote Queensland. That can be done only through generous donations from donors such as the Tim Fairfax Family Foundation. The opportunity to see art from around the world should not be just for those who live in South-East Queensland but for all Queenslanders. The Queensland Art Gallery is an exciting place, with masterpieces around the world and from local artists. By supporting this bill we are supporting the future of the Queensland Art Gallery and art for everybody. I wish to thank my fellow committee members— Ms Trad interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ruthenberg): Order I am going to ask the member for South Brisbane to please stop talking across the chamber. Mr BOOTHMAN: Art is a window to the past and the future. It defines who we are as a culture. I commend to this bill to the House. Mr SYMES (Lytton—LNP) (10.18 pm): To rise to tonight to speak in support of the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012. Mr Bleijie: Talk about the member for South Brisbane, Neil, and her contribution. 12 Sep 2012 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 1895

Mr SYMES: It is definitely coming. As a member of the Education and Innovation Committee, I can say that the reason for this amendment bill is to enable the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees the autonomy to establish a committee, which includes board members and non-board members, to undertake the activities of the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation. The bill seeks to address the objectives that are presented in the explanatory notes, which I will touch on briefly. The first objective is to extend the functions of the board to include developing the art gallery’s collection of artwork. This point is extremely important to the wider arts community in Queensland, especially my electorate of Lytton where we have some very proactive groups and businesses, including the Wynnum-Manly Arts Council, BAM—Bayside Arts and Music—and the famous Manly Gallery. I must add that I have a beautiful print depicting a part of the Wynnum Esplanade in my meeting room for constituents courtesy of the Manly Gallery and a professionally framed photograph of Manly Harbour at midnight by local resident Jonathon Dass of Wynnum. Mr Bleijie: They like their local member now. Mr SYMES: They do. An opposition member interjected. Mr SYMES: It is very relevant. I take that interjection. Therefore the electorate office truly supports local artists—something the Labor Party does not. An opposition member interjected. Mr SYMES: They could be one day. Another great example of the benefits that arts play in the wider community is that of the Brisbane Gang Show conducted by Scouts Queensland. On Friday, 6 July I attended their evening show at the Schonell Theatre in the member for Indooroopilly’s electorate. The seats were full and the show was of a very high calibre as scout groups throughout South-East Queensland participated in the show. Later that night I went backstage to speak to the cast on behalf of the Queensland government to congratulate the participants who were children. ‘Well done!’, I said to them. In talking with the management of Scouts Queensland I was briefed that the gang show tours regional Queensland to help entertain communities throughout Queensland. As seen in clause 4 of the amendment bill, the function of the foundation committee is to help raise funds to assist the board’s functions, which includes development of the gallery’s collection. If the foundation committee has a sound fundraising platform it will provide an option for the board to undertake the purchase of more local art from all over Queensland, especially Lytton. Mrs Miller: And Ipswich. Mr SYMES: I take that interjection. There are some great arts councils in the electorates of Ipswich West and Bundamba. I must come up and have a look myself, just like the member came to Wynnum last week. Mrs Miller interjected. Mr SYMES: I know. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bundamba, please allow the member for Lytton to continue and show some courtesy. Mr SYMES: The amendment will enable the board to delegate its powers to the committee. The amendment bill inserts section 40E, which limits the exercise of the foundation committee’s power delegated by the board. Under this section it allows the foundation committee to have the powers necessary to encourage gifts, donations, bequests and legacies of properties for the board’s benefit but must not incur a debt. The foundation committee’s powers of investment are limited to those of the board. Also, I must add that under this amendment safeguards will be in place. That protection is not afforded unless the member has acted honestly and without negligence. The protection is only for civil matters, not criminal. Under the amendment bill the board assumes the liability so other parties dealing with the board still have a suitable course of redress. The last objective of this amendment bill that I will touch on is that the bill provides that the board is a charitable institution. The most reasonable and appropriate way to regularise the status of the foundation and to limit the restrictions on its ability to receive and deal with donations and/or bequests is by establishing a committee of the board to undertake the activities of the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation. Under the amendment there will be no additional costs to the Queensland government, which would be welcomed by the Treasurer who needs to find cost savings in the government to pay back Labor’s debt. I heard the member for South Brisbane’s reference to Milli Vanilli in her attack on the minister. I say to the honourable member for South Brisbane: on 24 March did the ALP ‘blame it on the rain’? I commend the amendment bill to the House as it supports the policy objectives as outlined in the explanatory notes and the reasons for them. An opposition member interjected. 1896 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

Mr SYMES: I will take that interjection. The reason for this amendment is to enable the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees to establish a committee with the inclusion of both board members and non-board members to carry on the activities of the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation in fundraising and management of the board’s operations. I commend the bill. Dr DAVIS (Stafford—LNP) (10.25 pm): In noting growing medical evidence that sleep deprivation results in a number of adverse health outcomes, I propose to follow Franklin Roosevelt’s advice to be sincere, be brief and be seated. Prior to resuming my seat I do, however, want to indicate my support of the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012 and congratulate the minister, her staff and others for their initiative and hard work in relation to it. Tolstoy defined art thus— Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them. So art has value at least in allowing the sharing of experiences and emotions regarding the human condition and, indeed, interpretation of these has stimulated the growth of disciplines such as aesthetics and psychology. Given that appreciation and interpretation of art is a mental activity, it is not surprising that an arts training is associated with high academic performance, including student problem solving and critical thinking skills thus contributing to school success and preparation for one’s vocation. I am also aware of research that suggests that adult self-reported interest in aesthetics is related to a temperamental factor of openness, which to me implies greater tolerance and sensitivity and is thus something that should be encouraged, particularly amongst those across the chamber. Given the ample evidence as to the importance of the work of the Queensland Art Gallery in enhancing the cultural and intellectual strength of our society and also allowing the pure enjoyment of art, I commend this bill to the House as a means of further assisting the gallery to deliver for the people of Queensland. Mr WALKER (Mansfield—LNP) (10.27 pm): I rise to speak in support of the bill tonight. The Deputy Premier has particularly asked me to go through a thorough analysis of this bill clause by clause applying my mind to the interesting legal matters that arise on just about every paragraph of the bill. I generally take the Deputy Premier’s advice, but tonight I do not feel that that is the mood of the House so suffice it to say that I have examined the bill, I have examined the committee’s report and I am satisfied that the minister has clearly addressed the uncertainties within the foundation’s structure. If I am not going to talk about law, I am going to talk briefly about the arts. I am not an expert in the visual arts, although I have been helped tonight by the member for Bundamba’s speech and her introduction to the concept of pastiche. I was not aware of it. I did look up the Oxford Dictionary to find the definition of pastiche, the member having introduced it to us. It is defined as ‘a medley of various ingredients; a hotchpotch, a ferrago, jumble’. I do thank the honourable member for raising the concept and I will forever associate it with her speech tonight. I am not an expert in the visual arts. In fact, the best guidance I have had was from a great sketch by Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, where they discuss what is the important thing about a painting. They come to the conclusion that it is a great painting if the eyes follow you around the room. That is about the level of my understanding. Peter Cook and Dudley Moore then had the dilemma of what happens if the people in the painting are facing away from you. They come to a conclusion, but I will not take the House to it tonight. I will come to the minister’s great achievement in giving solidity to this foundation and giving confidence to those who donate to it. I want to speak about private investment in the arts in Queensland, which I think is an important thing. I have not had experience in the visual arts. I did have the honour of being the chair of the board of the Camerata of St John’s, which is a chamber orchestra. I am aware of how important it is to get the structures right if you are to get the confidence of those who want to donate to the arts in Queensland. In the Camerata we had great support from the Tim Fairfax Family Foundation, EMR Power and Trevor St Baker. Because of the set-up, they had the confidence to deliver great support to the arts community of Queensland. It is a great thing that the minister is doing. Recently, we saw a similar thing happen with AEG Ogden, through Harvey Lister and Rod Pilbean, supporting Fanfare. It is important to acknowledge the great supporters of the arts in Queensland and to realise that what the minister has done here will set up a firm foundation for the Art Gallery to continue its fundraising and to continue to encourage those great Queenslanders who support the arts in our community. I think we should salute them and tonight is a great opportunity to do so. Mrs MADDERN (Maryborough—LNP) (10.30 pm): I rise to speak to the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill, but before I do I mention that last night I attended an arts function and I have great privilege in passing on to the minister the thanks of that arts group for her work. The purpose of this bill is to enable the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees to establish a foundation committee comprising both board and non-board members to continue the fundraising activities of the foundation for the purchase of artworks, which will be to the benefit of Queensland, interstate and international visitors to the gallery. The bill also gives effect to the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees to be deemed as a charitable institution, to enable it to receive private ancillary funds that are restricted to 12 Sep 2012 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 1897 donating to charitable institutions. The bill deems gifts to the foundation to be gifts to the board, thereby attracting charitable institution status. Further, the structure of the foundation committee, as set out by this bill, separates the work of the foundation from the daily running of the gallery, thus giving transparency for donors and benefactors. Previous speakers have addressed the proposed set-up, legal status and operations of the foundation committee. Since its inception in 1979, the foundation has raised over $75 million and facilitated the acquisition of over 5,400 works, representing more than one-third of the gallery’s collection. Artworks are acquired in accordance with the gallery’s acquisitions policy. Artworks acquired with the support of the foundation have contributed to the historical and contemporary holdings across all of the gallery’s collection areas, which include Australian art, Asia and Pacific art and international art. Historically, the gallery’s collecting has taken place across traditional areas. However, in the past 20 years the focus has shifted towards the representation of modern and contemporary cultures. As a result, the Queensland Art Gallery is now distinguished for its growing collections of contemporary Australian art, Indigenous Australian art and the art of the Asia-Pacific region. A great many contemporary Indigenous works have been acquired in recent years, and I have had a great deal of pleasure in researching the background of some of those artists. I ask for their indulgence for any mispronunciation of their names or the names of their artworks. They include Alick Tipoti’s 2000 linocut, Apu kaz, which was purchased through the foundation in 2010. Alick is a Torres Strait Islander, born on Thursday Island in 1975. In 2001, the foundation had purchased another of his works, Kobupa thoerapiese, 1999, a linocut on paper, which was purchased with funds donated from the Energex Brisbane Festival 2000. In 2008 the foundation purchased Sally Gabori’s painting Dibirdibi Country with funds from Margaret Mittelheuser AM and Cathryn Mittelheuser AM. Sally is a senior women of the Kaiadilt tribe of the southern Gulf of Carpentaria. She was born around 1924 and the early part of her life was spent in a completely traditional style. She is a mother and grandmother. She holds a wealth of knowledge of tribunal law and custom and currently lives on Mornington Island. As well as painting, she is noted for her accomplished traditional handcrafts made from materials from the bush. Funds from the National Australia Bank, through the foundation, purchased a stoneware work titled Pearl Shells—Wives of Shivaree, by artist Thanakupi. Thanakupi was born in Weipa on Cape York in 1937. She was a ceramist and sculptor and her artwork reflected her culture, with etchings and paintings of linear animal and human forms. Ken Thaiday Senior’s sculpture Beizam headdress (Black bamboo triple hammerhead shark) was purchased through the foundation in 2000. Ken Thaiday Senior is a senior member of the Meriam community on Darnley Island. He is noted for sculpturing headdresses with moveable parts, using both traditional and non-traditional materials. The background of each of these artists and their style of work gives both an historical and present-day visual perspective of the history and culture of the Aboriginal community in modern-day Queensland. These works can, and often are, used as visual teaching tools, but they also provide the pleasure of viewing the world through the eyes of skilled artisans. The continuation of the foundation’s work is essential to ensuring the gallery can continue to grow a unique collection that reflects our heritage and history and our place in the world. This bill will strengthen the foundation’s ability to continue this work. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HOLSWICH (Pine Rivers—LNP) (10.36 pm): I rise to provide a short statement in support of the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill. Not only do I rise to speak in support of the bill but I also intend to speak about the bill, because unlike the member for South Brisbane who, from her speech earlier tonight, I surmise seems to think that the arts portfolio provides a somewhat convenient opportunity to springboard herself into higher duties, I actually have a genuine interest in the arts. It is not an interest that is all about gratuitous self-promotion. I am proud to be involved in arts organisations at a grassroots level in the Pine Rivers electorate and I am pleased to speak to any piece of legislation that seeks to benefit the arts in Queensland. This particular legislation enables the Art Gallery Board of Trustees to establish a foundation committee to continue the work of the foundation, work that greatly benefits our community. I understand that, in coming to the decision reflected in this bill, a range of options were considered but the committee option was settled on because the model does not fundamentally change the current status of the foundation, it strengthens the foundation in a technical and legislative way, and it aligns the foundation with the board’s strategic directions and board membership. This approach is consistent with the National Gallery of Victoria Act 1966, which established the National Gallery of Victoria Foundation as a committee of the Council of Trustees of the National Gallery of Victoria. I understand that the board did initially consider the formation of a company to act as corporate trustee, but came to the conclusion that this structure would place restrictions upon the foundation’s ability to receive and process bequests and donations. By comparison, under the committee model the foundation would not, for tax purposes, be a separate institution from the board. Under the proposed structure, donations will be made to the board which already has deductible gift recipient status, and the 1898 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012 deductible gift recipient and tax status of the foundation will be the same as that of the board. As a committee of the board, the foundation committee will be able to receive donations from private ancillary funds, as the restriction on a private ancillary fund donating to another like fund would not apply. Establishing a foundation committee allows the board to retain control over the management and operations of the foundation, given the large amount of funds under management, and avoids the need to create a new government body for the foundation. Ultimately, in my opinion, the process outlined in this bill seems the most appropriate way to give the foundation solid legal underpinning, whilst limiting any restrictions on the foundation’s ability to receive donations. As I said at the beginning of my short contribution, I am a proud supporter of the arts. I am proud to be a member of a government that is significantly supporting the arts at a grassroots level, with initiatives such as the $3 million Super Star Fund and the $3 million Regional Arts Fund. I am proud to be on the committee of my local theatre company, the wonderful Act1 Theatre in Strathpine, and I am proud to be working with the Moreton Bay Regional Council on several local arts issues. Whilst Labor seemed to think that it had some sort of exclusive claim to the arts, this LNP government will continue to work hard to get our state back on track, so that we can continue to invest in the arts in Queensland. Labor may have first introduced this bill, but yet again it is the LNP government that is delivering. Whilst this bill may be somewhat dry in nature, it is still another small step in proving the Newman government’s commitment to the arts in Queensland. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House. Mr HART (Burleigh—LNP) (10.39 pm): I rise today to speak in support of the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012. This bill is quite straightforward. It is purely about corporate governance. This is something that those opposite—the Labor Party, the former government—have a very bad history of. We only have to look at the Health payroll system and the $1.2 billion that was wasted there to know that those opposite do not know anything about corporate governance. Ms TRAD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I do not think the member is being relevant to the long title of the bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berry): Order! The point of order is overruled. I call the member for Burleigh. Mr HART: In 2007-08 the Auditor-General had a close look at the Art Gallery Foundation’s legal status. He reported that there was an increased risk of noncompliance with laws and regulations which could unnecessarily expose the government, the board and the employees to legal challenge. He went on to recommend that the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees ‘urgently review the legal basis for the foundation and take all necessary action to ensure that it complies with all relevant laws and regulations’. That was five years ago. We have heard the members opposite—we have heard the member for South Brisbane and the member for Bundamba—speak here in this place. They did not talk about the bill; they talked about members’ speeches. They have sniggered and they have laughed, but they have not looked at this bill. They had five years to do something about this, and what did they do? Absolutely nothing. During that time, the hardworking staff, volunteers and board members were exposed to legal action because of the incompetence of the former government. We have seen in a very short period of time our new minister come in here, put this piece of legislation to the House and get it passed. That is something the previous government were incapable of doing. So I commend the minister for that. This bill seeks to amend the Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987 to allow the Art Gallery Board of Trustees to establish a foundation committee, featuring both existing board members and non-board members, to enable them to carry out the vital activities of the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation. It is important to state that the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation has been dedicated to the development of the gallery’s collection and its very diverse exhibition program since its establishment in 1979. Over this time the foundation has raised over $75 million from the support of memberships, donations, bequests and cultural gifts. In the 2010-11 period alone, the foundation raised over $2 million from these avenues. To be able to meet the objectives of the bill, the functions of the board will be extended to include developing the Art Gallery’s collection of works. The board will be able to establish a foundation committee to carry out the necessary work of the foundation. I understand that the minister will move amendments during consideration in detail to allow the board to determine membership of the foundation committee and conditions of those memberships. The board will also be able to determine the name, constitution and procedures for the committee and to delegate its powers to the foundation committee to raise funds in the fulfilment of the board’s functions. This bill will also extend civil liability protection to committee members to the same extent as that provided to board members—again, something that those opposite completely ignored in their speeches. The foundation committee will undertake the activities of the Art Gallery Foundation in a most reasonable and appropriate way to ensure regularisation of the status of the foundation and to limit the restrictions placed on the foundation to receive and deal with bequests and donations. Through this approach the board will be able to retain control over the management and operations taking place in the foundation and it will also avoid the need to create a new government body for the foundation. 12 Sep 2012 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 1899

During the formation and development of the bill, the Queensland Art Gallery management, the Art Gallery Board of Trustees and the foundation council were all consulted. Now there is a word that the former government did not know existed I am sure, because as far as consultation was concerned they never bothered to talk to anybody about this. These people have been consulted. They fully agree with the bill that is before us, and we are getting on with it in a very short space of time. The amendment of the Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987 has been created to ensure that no additional costs are incurred as a result of its application and there will also be no financial impacts on the board under the new structure. I commend the Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts for her quick work in bringing this amendment before the House. I happily commend the bill to the House. Mr DILLAWAY (Bulimba—LNP) (10.45 pm): I rise in the House to speak at length in support of the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012. I congratulate the Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts for introducing this bill to the House that amends the Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987. I acknowledge those speakers from this side of the House who have contributed to the debate with sensible points. I would also like to thank the Education and Innovation Committee on their examination and subsequent recommendations on the bill. This bill gives the Art Gallery Board of Trustees the ability to establish a committee on behalf of the Queensland Art Gallery Foundation as a committee of the board. It will enable broader membership of the foundation consisting of both board and non-board members. The functions of the committee will include raising funds to assist in the fulfilment of the board’s functions, having the powers necessary to encourage gifts, donations, bequests and legacies of property for the benefit of the board. Both the Queensland Art Gallery and the Gallery of Modern Art are administered under one act— the Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987—and have one overarching governance and management structure. The Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees is the gallery’s governing body. Under this act, the board is allowed to delegate its powers to a committee of board members only. The Queensland Art Gallery Foundation was established in 1979 and has since raised over $75 million and contributed to the acquisition of more than 5,400 artworks. It is an integral part of the growth of the Queensland Art Gallery as one of the most visited art complexes in the country. By amending the Queensland Art Gallery Act 1987 to create a committee of the board to govern the foundation’s activities and opening up the membership, the capabilities of the foundation will in turn be broadened. Extending membership to non-board members will encompass a larger scope of benefactors and donations, and fundraising efforts can be maximised. With the recent new appointment of Professor Susan Street as chair of the Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees, it is an exciting time for the Queensland Art Gallery, one of our state’s most recognised icons. With a fresh perspective and a committee working on behalf of the foundation, we are sure to see even more creative prowess flowing out from South Bank. As a must-see attraction for many of our tourists in Brisbane, our state’s economy can only benefit from endorsing our arts and culture— important aspects of life. The other advantage this bill offers is that, with a large amount of private and government funds under the management of a committee, it will avoid the need to create a new government body for the foundation. As a committee of the board, the board will determine the name and constitution and have the ability to dissolve the committee. Consisting of at least two board members, the newly established committee will still report to the board but have a balance between being controlled and independent. As the member for Bulimba, many residents of my electorate are regular visitors to the Queensland Art Gallery and Gallery of Modern Art as they take the ferry from either Hawthorne or Bulimba into the South Bank precinct. The schools organise frequent excursions for their students as part of encompassing the experience of art into their education. Bulimba is also home to many local artists, and I have been fortunate enough to visit a few of their recent exhibitions. As they are passionate about their art, I know that they will be excited by this bill as it opens up membership of the foundation, giving it a degree of transparency and creating a distinction from the board as it allows non-board members to be a part. As an avid art collector, I have instilled into my children the broader benefits the arts can provide in learning and understanding different ways to express the world around us. As the member for Bulimba, I have undertaken the task to recognise the artistic ability of all primary school students across Bulimba by inviting them to participate in designing my Christmas card for 2012. This year’s theme is a Queensland Christmas. I invited two prominent local artists—Debra Hood and Lance Lamb—to help me judge what many would consider priceless pieces of art. Most recently I have also sponsored and supported two very successful art displays across Bulimba. The first was for the Norman Park State School’s fete and the second was for the Morningside State School’s Peg and Line Art Show. In 2013 I will continue to support the local arts in Bulimba by inviting all secondary schools to submit one student’s piece of art per term to be displayed in my electorate office. This will allow the broader community to see firsthand the budding future artists our schools are developing within our community. 1900 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012

This amendment bill presents an exciting opportunity in future prospects for the gallery, and I look forward to the great exhibitions that are sure to result in the coming years. I once again congratulate the Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts and express my support for the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 2012. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. RM BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts) (10.51 pm), in reply: I would like to thank all the members who have contributed to the debate on the Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill. We have heard from government and non- government members, and it is pleasing to have such widespread bipartisan support united in finally putting the foundation on the proper legal footing so it can continue its world-class work unimpeded. The purpose of the bill is to provide a clear legal status in response to the Auditor-General’s corporate governance concerns and to extend the functions to further develop the gallery’s collection of artworks. We also want to increase the protection from civil liability and to make the board a charitable institution. Queensland art galleries are leading the nation in terms of popularity and will continue to act as a major drawcard as we grow our reputation as a cultural tourism destination. I thank again the member for Burdekin for her comprehensive summary of the Education and Innovation Committee’s consideration of the bill. The member for Ferny Grove spoke about the importance of the QAG’s and GoMA’s work in the regions—a contribution which highlights the Newman government’s commitment to providing arts for all Queenslanders. The member for Logan spoke about the importance of art education and supporting arts for children. I was pleased to be part of the member’s art competition and present students with certificates. The member for Ipswich West spoke about the appointment processes for foundation committee members. Getting the right team with the right skill sets is of paramount importance. Not only do we need industry, finance and community representatives; we need people who can better engage with the private sector to encourage more corporate support and philanthropy. It will be the board’s responsibility to look after appointments and terminations. Betting will be rigorous and the bar will be set high. The bill sets out governance arrangements for the foundation committee and includes a requirement for the board to endorse the constitution of the foundation committee. At least two board members must sit on the foundation, and all matters potentially representing a conflict of interest will be dealt with in a transparent and accountable manner. The member for Burnett spoke about the important work the foundation had been undertaking in relation to the 7th Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art. I was particularly impressed to hear about Huang Yong Ping’s work—a signature work in the 7th Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art. Along with many other members, the member for Burnett also recognised the important role played by Mr Tim Fairfax and the Tim Fairfax Family Foundation in supporting programs for children and regional Queensland. The member for Waterford recognised the gallery’s major international exhibitions, community focus and work with children. The member for Redlands noted that the make-up of the foundation committee will be designed to develop the gallery’s collection. The member for Lytton spoke about the ability of the board to delegate its powers to the foundation committee. I appreciate the member for Stafford’s observations about the value of art and the sharing of experiences and the role of the Queensland Art Gallery in enhancing the cultural and intellectual strengths of Queensland. The member for Mansfield spoke of the importance of giving confidence to donors through certainty and structure, and this is what this bill will achieve. The member for Maryborough spoke eloquently and passionately about the foundation and particular types of artworks acquired since the foundation’s inception in 1979. It is a diverse and eclectic collection spanning from the historical to the contemporary including world-class Indigenous and Australian art as well as pieces from the Asia- Pacific region. The member for Pine Rivers spoke about the committee structures. The Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees looked long and hard at all the options, but the committee was the preferred option as it strengthens the foundation without fundamentally changing its status. A second seriously considered option was to form a company to act as trustee, but this structure had limitations on the foundation’s ability to deal with donations, particularly in relation to tax incentives and eligibility around the Commonwealth government’s Cultural Gifts Program. Another avenue was establishing the foundation as a trust with corporate and individual trustees, but that was restrictive and fraught with complications, too. There is a genuine need for the foundation to obtain deductible gift recipient status so that donations are tax deductible for the payee. This gives incentive to donors. It also makes the board a charitable institution in relation to a gift. The bill will allow private ancillary funds which are restricted to donating to charities to donate to the board. The bottom line is by creating a foundation committee the structure is given a solid platform and enhances fundraising capacity. The member for Burleigh spoke about the consultation process that took place in the development of the bill. Since being sworn in as Minister for the Arts, I have been to both the Queensland Art Gallery and the Gallery of Modern Art on many occasions. I had the honour of opening 12 Sep 2012 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 1901 the Prado exhibition at the Art Gallery and spoke at the opening night of the Contemporary Australia: Women exhibition at GoMA. We are privileged in Queensland to have two world-class institutions. I am hopeful that the successful passing of this bill will allow the foundation to build on the success of these great institutions and further enhance Brisbane’s growing reputation as an arts and cultural mecca. This bill is a long time coming, but the day has finally arrived. Our enormously popular art galleries and all of the hardworking people behind the scenes have achieved so much even with restrictions in place. After this bill is passed, the shackles will come off. The foundation committee can get on the front foot and be even more proactive in making Queensland a global arts leader. Finally, I would like to set the record straight regarding some matters arising from my first reading speech. The ‘L-plated’ member for South Brisbane is trying to twist the facts and play gutter politics, but I refuse to stoop to that level because I suspect that she would beat me with experience every time. The greenhorn member for South Brisbane would be well advised to ask her leader and deputy leader, who were both ministers in the former government, about how the system actually works. This is a history lesson for the member. The explanatory notes are a factual summary of the bill. The first reading speech is typically a dispassionate summary of the matters included in the explanatory notes. It is dispassionate and dry for a reason, because some day a court may have to decide what the legislative intent of a particular provision is by looking at what the minister has said in these types of speeches. Ms Trad: And you were on the parliamentary committee that saw the first explanatory speech. You are a joke! You are incompetent and you are a joke! Ms BATES: Maybe the member for South Brisbane might stop interjecting across the chamber— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berry): Order! There is too much noise. We are nearly finished. I call the minister. Ms BATES: First reading speeches are not supposed to be flamboyant or filled with rhetoric; they are supposed to be purely factual. I was given a speech by the department that filled those requirements. As the bill introduced by the last government was identical to the bill introduced by this government, the speech was always going to be substantially similar. The department provided a speech to Minister Nolan which she read word for word. Unfortunately, the department provided an identical speech to me. Indeed, the department never provided Ms Nolan’s speech to compare, otherwise my staff would have picked it up. Ms Trad interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The issue has been raised. She is answering it. Let her answer it. She is not taking interjections. Ms BATES: I table a copy of the department’s director-general note confirming that no copy of the original speech was ever included. Tabled paper: Email, dated 14 August 2012, from Digby McLeay to Hon. Ros Bates [1034]. In these areas in which the department is responsible, I expect high standards—those high standards are higher than cutting and pasting. My mistake was not checking every single word in every single brief to ensure it was accurate. I cannot do that and put my focus on where it should be, which is getting Queensland back on track. Instead of moving on and concentrating on getting the bill enacted, there were further dirty politics from those opposite and in particular from the wet behind the ears member for South Brisbane, who just cannot help herself. She is cut from the same cloth as her seat predecessor, wallowing in smear and innuendo. This time the member for South Brisbane spoke to Crikey’s Ben Eltham, and I table an article claiming that Ros Bates was present in the House when the first reading speech from the previous parliament was given. Tabled paper: Page 1 of article from Crikey, dated 1 June 2012, titled ‘The minister, the speech and the troubled department’ [1035]. The fact of the matter is that I was not present in the chamber when the previous minister delivered it, as claimed. The chamber footage— Ms Palaszczuk: Did you have the TV on? Ms BATES: I am answering the question, Annastacia. The chamber footage is freely available on the parliamentary website and only one minute and 37 seconds of the speech was actually delivered by Minister Nolan. The rest, as usual from the lazy Labor government, was incorporated into Hansard so not even the whole speech was read. I table a snapshot of the House taken from when Minister Nolan was speaking; I am nowhere to be seen. Tabled paper: Screenshot of Legislative Assembly chamber, on 29 November 2011 at 19:40:34 [1036]. I also table a screen shot taken immediately after the minister was speaking again, and again I am not there. Tabled paper: Screenshot of Legislative Assembly chamber, on 29 November 2011 at 19:42:01 [1037]. Importantly, the second shot includes footage of my empty seat. I will also address the allegations surrounding the dismissal of the former deputy director of arts, Shane Rowlands. It was widely reported in the media that she was sacked as a result of my department’s blunder; this is not actually the case. There were a number of issues surrounding her performance which I will not go into here but they were 1902 Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill 12 Sep 2012 very significant. So if I can give the member for South Brisbane some advice it would be this: no-one will listen to you if you continually mislead them; make sure your criticisms are factual; do not pretend you know something when you clearly do not; and do not allow your ambition to overcome your ability. Ms Trad interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for South Brisbane, you raised the issue. The minister is not taking interjections so you should listen to the minister. She is responding. Ms BATES: The member for South Brisbane should check her facts before she goes off half cocked, trying to besmirch people’s reputations in order to score cheap political points. I hope the member for South Brisbane learns from this unfortunate experience and lifts her game. For the sake of her long-suffering constituents, she must abandon the fast and ‘loose with the truth’ style she learnt so well from the previous member for South Brisbane. I remind her of what the people thought of that negative style of politicking. Another story from Ben Eltham appeared in Crikey today, alleging job losses inside some of our statutory bodies. This article and the article from the Australian, which I table, caused all sorts of concerns over at the statutory bodies today. Tabled paper: Page 2 of article from Crikey, dated 1 June 2012, titled ‘The minister, the speech and the troubled department’ [1038]. There are no changes to core funding allocations or full-time equivalent staff members at the arts statutory bodies due to the Newman government’s state budget for 2012-13. Ms Trad interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I warn the member for South Brisbane. Ms BATES: But Mr Eltham has some experience in the arts. He was appointed by the previous government to review arts grants and he was actually paid for them. Notably, it was Mr Eltham who signed off on one of the most ridiculous arts programs in Queensland called the ‘sexy knickers’ display. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may ask what the ‘sexy knickers’ arts project was and where it toured. I certainly did not see it, but some would say that Mr Eltham would have been better off encouraging people to go stand outside Victoria’s Secret for nothing. In summation, I will also be writing to Madam Speaker and I will be referring the member for South Brisbane to the Ethics Committee on two things: first, when she said that I sacked the deputy director-general, which is completely and absolutely false; and, second, that I was in the House when the original speech was made. There is no defence against a liar. Ms Trad: Mr Deputy Speaker, the minister called me a liar. I find that term unparliamentary and insulting and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, will you withdraw that? Ms BATES: I withdraw. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7— Ms BATES (11.05 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 7 (Insertion of new pt 2, div 7) Page 6, lines 13 to 19— omit, insert— ’(6) The board must— (a) decide the name of the foundation committee; and (b) decide the conditions of membership to the foundation committee; and (c) endorse the constitution for the foundation committee. ‘(7) The board may decide matters about the foundation committee that are not provided for under this Act. ‘(8) The board may dissolve the foundation committee at any time.’. I table the explanatory notes to my amendment. Tabled paper: Queensland Art Gallery Amendment Bill, explanatory notes to the Hon. Ros Bates’s amendment to be moved in consideration in detail [1039]. 12 Sep 2012 Adjournment 1903

Ms TRAD: I have a question of the minister in relation to the number of members from the foundation committee who must also be board members. Can the minister advise whether or not there are any constraints around the ratio? Is there a minimum number of board members who must be appointed in comparison to a minimum number of non-board members on any occasion? Is there a ratio limitation on the membership of the foundation committee? Ms BATES: I would like to advise that the board must appoint at least two members of the board to the foundation committee. Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 8 to 12, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Hon. RM BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts) (11.08 pm): I move— That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time.

Long Title Hon. RM BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (Minister for Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts) (11.09 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Manager of Government Business) (11.09 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Public Service, Jobs Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.09 pm): Today we saw some 10,000 people march down the street to the area outside Parliament House. Not only were they marching on this parliament, but they were also marching right across this state—down on the Gold Coast, up on the Sunshine Coast and up in Townsville and Cairns. Why are they angry? They are angry about the job cuts that this government has inflicted on the state. They are very angry. But I am not the only voice that is saying that what is happening in this state is a disgrace. Clive Palmer was on Lateline tonight and he said exactly these words, ‘It is a disgrace what is happening in this state of Queensland.’ Never did I think that I would be in a state where tens of thousands of people would march in protest against what this government is doing. Every single LNP member must bear the brunt of their decisions regarding this budget to sack thousands of workers in this state. Who has taken joint responsibility? The Premier and the Treasurer are absolutely responsible. The Treasurer said, ‘I take full responsibility.’ Full responsibility means that he understands that the livelihoods of all these people are gone. Now how are they feeling? How does he think they are feeling tonight? How does he think they are feeling, having to go home and talk to their families and say that their job has been ripped out? How are they feeling when they have been told that their job has been ripped out from underneath them? There is dignity and there is self-respect in having a job, and thousands of workers have been told, either by email or by phone, that they have no job. There has also been no recognition given to these workers. Members opposite can all sit there and smile and smirk, but these people have given decades of their life to improving the state of Queensland. Do they get a thankyou? Did they get a farewell? They got nothing from this government. They got absolutely nothing from this government. Ms Trad: They got a brown box. Ms PALASZCZUK: That is right; they got a box. It is a disgrace. For once, Clive Palmer has it right; what is happening in this state is a disgrace. 1904 Adjournment 12 Sep 2012

McGuckin, Bishop R

Hon. JJ McVEIGH (Toowoomba South—LNP) (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (11.12 pm): I wish to share with the House some comments on the recent ordination of Bishop Robert McGuckin as the sixth bishop of the Catholic diocese of Toowoomba, which stretches from the Lockyer Valley west to the South Australian border. Bishop McGuckin was ordained on 11 July this year in the diocese’s St Patrick’s Cathedral, in my electorate of Toowoomba South, in a ceremony presided over by the Archbishop of Brisbane, Mark Coleridge, in the company of Apostolic Nuncio Giuseppe Lazzarotto and numerous other Australian bishops. Bishop McGuckin comes to Toowoomba from his previous position as Vicar General of the Catholic diocese of Parramatta where he was also Moderator of the Curia and Episcopal Vicar for Health and Social Welfare. The bishop holds degrees in theology and canon law and has extensive experience in church tribunals where he is an accredited ecclesiastical judge. Upon his appointment, I was impressed to read the bishop’s reflection on a biblical passage from Matthew, ‘He came to serve, not to be served.’ At the ordination, Archbishop Coleridge reflected that the Toowoomba diocese has known significant turbulence in recent years following the early retirement, as required by the Vatican, of the previous bishop, William Morris, who had been in the role for the previous 18 years. Bishop Morris has been and continues to be a dear friend of many in the Toowoomba diocese, including my wife, my family and me. It was thus touching that our new bishop insisted that William Morris play a key role in the ordination ceremony. I note that Bishop Morris’s retirement, which attracted worldwide attention at the time, was reflected upon by the then members for Toowoomba in this House—Kerry Shine and my predecessor, Mike Horan. The Toowoomba diocese is indeed fortunate to have a learned and wise bishop in Robert McGuckin. I, therefore, add my welcome to that that he has received from many of the parishioners throughout the vast Toowoomba diocese. I applaud the bishop for his thoughtfulness extended to our previous bishop and I, together with many others, look forward to his leadership in our region.

Samford Rural Fire Brigade; Q3 District Lions Convention

Mr SHUTTLEWORTH (Ferny Grove—LNP) (11.15 pm): I rise this evening to pay tribute to the outstanding work of the Samford Rural Fire Brigade and also to outline an important event occurring in Samford from 5 to 7 October. At the weekend, I had the great privilege of representing the Minister for Police and Community Safety, the Hon. Jack Dempsey, at an event that recognised the brigade on its 60 years of service as well as commissioning their new appliance, Samford 61. Throughout the afternoon, I had great pleasure in awarding 13 volunteers with the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service National Medal and the Diligent and Ethical Service Medal. The Samford Rural Fire Brigade was founded by Mr Jack Mitchell with the support of his wife, Joyce, and both were at the presentation throughout the afternoon. It was clear to all who were present that their commitment to the local community has waned little over the years. It is no small task to keep a volunteer organisation running for 60 years. However, the 74 dedicated Samford Rural Fire Brigade volunteers have managed to ensure that the district remains well protected throughout the bushfire seasons. The area that the brigade is responsible for stretches from Bunya to Mount Nebo, covering approximately 89 square kilometres. The task of protecting this area is made a little easier with the commissioning of their new appliance, Samford 61. It is a $375,000 dual cab, four-wheel-drive vehicle that is able to carry six firefighters and 4,000 litres of water. The importance of the event was made evident through the personnel who attended, the Assistant Commissioners for Urban and Rural Operations, Ian Mitchell and Neil Gallant, and the Northern Zone Commander Noel Harbottle. The crowd favourite was Area Director of Rural Operations, Neil Kelson. It was also evident that the part played by the brigade is well regarded as other community groups sent representatives to acknowledge this important occasion, such as the officer in charge of the Ferny Grove Police Station, local SES and ambulance officers, Samford Museum and the Samford CWA, who provided an outstanding morning tea. While I would hope that the work of the brigade is not significantly tested this fire season, early indications are that they will be quite busy. The new appliance has already been out in the field, assisting with events over at Brookfield at the weekend. I wish the Samford Rural Fire Brigade and all brigades throughout Queensland the very best for what may be a long, hot summer. The other event I mentioned briefly is an event occurring between 5 and 7 October, which is the Q3 district Lions convention for 2012. It will be held at the Samford Showgrounds throughout that weekend. I would encourage all members to come along and visit on that important occasion. I wish to update the House at some later stage about the success of the event. 12 Sep 2012 Adjournment 1905

Public Service, Jobs Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (11.18 pm): I also attended the rally outside parliament today where thousands of good people—thousands of good Queenslanders—gathered to show their concerns about Premier Newman. I cannot believe our Premier is so out of touch with so many good Queensland people that he would dismiss the protest as simply a mere union stunt. Premier Newman recently spoke about leading with humility and dignity. I have seen no signs of leading with humility and dignity from Premier Newman to date. At the rally I spoke with Queenslanders—teachers, ambulance officers, fire officers and cleaners—and they shared with me how they have given their all for Queensland. They have worked so jolly hard and some of them have now been sacked—the first time in their lives. Guess what? When their jobs are replaced by private enterprise they believe it will cost the taxpayers more to do the same work they have been doing. Our parliamentary standing orders do not allow me to repeat here tonight what they said about Premier Newman. Some even volunteered that they voted for the Liberal National Party at the last state election and—guess what?—they definitely will not be voting for the Liberal National Party and Campbell Newman again. Members might be interested to know that they suggested to me that the member for Southern Downs would be a better Premier than the member for Ashgrove. They spoke about the clear differences in the leadership styles of the member for Ashgrove and the member for Southern Downs. I put on the record here tonight that I believe the member for Southern Downs would make a better Premier for Queensland. He shows better leadership skills than we have seen since the last state election from the member for Ashgrove. Milosevic, Mr S Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (11.20 pm): It is with great sadness that I bring to the notice of the parliament the death of Stjepan Milosevic, better known to us as Ricky Milosevic, of Quilpie, my home town. I attended his funeral today at the Marist College Ashgrove chapel. Ricky was born on 8 April 1972 at Penrith in Sydney and perished in Uruzgan Province in Afghanistan on 30 August. Lance Corporal Ricky Milosevic is the son of Bozidar, better known as Bob, and Heather. Bob was a Croatian migrant and Heather an English migrant. He is survived by his sisters, Danica and Megan; his brother, Milan; his wife, Kelly; and daughters, Katie and Sarah. This young man grew up in Quilpie. His father came there pursuing the alluvial opal. They turned out to be absolutely fantastic citizens. Ricky attended St Finbarr’s School in Quilpie and went on to Marist College Ashgrove, where he finished his senior education. He went back to Quilpie and pursued many other career paths as a young man. He joined the army in 2008 and did two tours to Afghanistan, the second starting on 27 June this year. Ricky was a member of the 2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment, Queensland Mounted Infantry, based at Enoggera, Brisbane. When you see his wife, Kelly, and his daughters, Katie and Sarah, at the chapel at Ashgrove, it makes you wonder what this is all about. This young man is a proud Australian and a proud Queenslander. Not since Billy Martin, another Quilpie boy who lost his life in Vietnam in the late sixties and is now buried in Winton cemetery, have we lost people from Western Queensland in conflict. I say on behalf of the people in the parliament and the people of Western Queensland: I salute you, Ricky. The whole of Australia salutes you. You died in that cowardly act along with your two mates. But we love you and we treasure you. We respect your mother, your late father, your brother, your sisters, your wife and your daughters. May you rest in peace, mate. Ipswich Hospital, Nurses Mr BERRY (Ipswich—LNP) (11.23 pm): The Ipswich General Hospital was founded in 1860, has continued to serve the people of Ipswich and is now undergoing a further expansion with the addition of a 90-bed wing, to be completed by early 2013. A good many doctors and nurses have graced the hallways of this enduring institution. I wish to speak about those dedicated nurses of past years. On Saturday, 8 September 2012, in the Humanities Building, Ipswich, I had the honour and pleasure of attending the Ipswich Hospital nurses association’s annual general meeting, which happily coincided with the association’s 50th graduation reunion, including the celebratory function to be held that night at the Hotel Ipswich International. For the more than 50 attendees arriving from all over Queensland, it was very pleasing for me to see the rekindling of old friendships that had endured from the camaraderie that was formed in the early days of nursing at the Ipswich Hospital. I know from firsthand experience, through my wife’s nursing career, both as a trainee and as a registered nurse, of the need to rely on fellowship during the long hours and the short breaks that were the normal part of the shiftwork that came with that profession. The role of nurse has evolved considerably over the years. As the role was mainly hands-on patient care, the registered nurse had the responsibility to provide comfort to the sick and dignity to the dying—not always an easy task and an everlasting memory that is part and parcel of the nursing 1906 Adjournment 12 Sep 2012 profession. It leads to nurses ensuring that they really enjoy their time off in recuperating between shifts. This work-relaxation balance is usually facilitated by fellow nurses who are sympathetic to each other’s needs and ideals. It is in this company of past nurses that I felt comfortable and welcomed, particularly when the majority of these past nurses shared with me the familiar grey hair which is a beacon of both maturity and wisdom. It is with the blessing of the meeting that I relate that Mrs Shirley Brown was elected unopposed to the position of president. Mrs Lorna Hobson again became the treasurer, while the secretary, Mrs Barbara Stephens, was also re-elected unopposed and ably assisted by Eslyn Wass as part of the management committee. A proper and dignified tribute of life membership was made to Mrs Ray Scrivener, and Mrs Margaret Macfarlane was made patroness after a longstanding absence of a patron after the death of Lady Leone Edwards. On a personal note, it was indeed a great pleasure to be seated next to Mrs Robyn Tindall, a past nurse and, coincidentally, the wife of Mr Robert Tindall, a fellow solicitor and past Australian rules umpire. I met Bob when I became an Australian rules umpire in the 1970s. We had the luxury of swapping tales and reminiscing about those early days in Brisbane. (Time expired) Public Service, Jobs Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (11.26 pm): At the outset I would like to table the definition of ‘pastiche’ for the benefit of the member for Mansfield, who has obviously been excreting bricks all afternoon following the march today of thousands of people outside the parliament protesting against the Public Service sackings. Tabled paper: Definition of ‘pastiche’ from oxforddictionaries.com [1040]. There were 10,000 people out the front of the parliament today. There were also thousands of people across Queensland—in Cairns, Townsville and other regional communities—who are sick and tired of the disgraceful slash and burn of the Newman LNP government. They know that it is not can-do spin doctors who put out fires; it is the public servants. They know that it is not can-do spin doctors who collect accident victims off the road; it is the public servants. They know that it is not can-do spin doctors who help children who have been abused; it is the public servants. They know that it is not can-do spin doctors who save heart attack victims; it is the public servants. What did those opposite do to those decent, dedicated, hardworking public servants? They lowered themselves again. They did not send the box man in with his cardboard boxes. What did public servants get? An email. You gutless wonders! It is just amazing. They got an email. How impersonal is that? Madam SPEAKER: Member for Bundamba, that is unparliamentary. I ask you to withdraw. Mrs MILLER: I withdraw. How impersonal is that? They were told to pack up their personal things and get out. They were told, ‘Here’s a taxi voucher to get home.’ No time for tears, no time for farewells, no time to say goodbye to lifelong friends. And then they had to go home and tell their families that they had been sacked. One was a bloke I knew who had worked in the Public Service for 38 years. He was told to go home and get out. How disgusting and disgraceful is that? These public servants know that this government is not going to stop at sacking 14,000 workers; there will also be workers going from community groups that it has defunded. There will also be slashing of working conditions such as the meal break payments for ambos, and the petty moving of the Labour Day public holiday from May, when it has been held for over 100 years. This is just absolutely incredible. They are saying that they do not want anything more to do with this LNP government. They are sick of the members across here, who smile and smirk while they go around sacking Queensland workers. As they were saying today— We’ll be sacking Campbell Newman in two years We’ll be sacking Campbell Newman in two years. Yes, you sack them and they will sack you in return. Lower Oxley Creek South Neighbourhood Plan Mr SHORTEN (Algester—LNP) (11.29 pm): I do not know who I put offside tonight, but to follow the member for Bundamba twice is unbelievable. I would like to speak tonight about the Brisbane City Council’s Lower Oxley Creek South Neighbourhood Plan, which is currently open for public comment until 8 October. The Lower Oxley Creek South Neighbourhood Plan, which is being undertaken, has been ongoing for a number of years now. The Brisbane City Council has undertaken the neighbourhood plan to guide future development in the areas of Pallara, Heathwood and Larapinta. Under the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009- 2031, the Lower Oxley Creek area has been identified as being within the urban footprint, which results in the area being required to accommodate new growth. 12 Sep 2012 Adjournment 1907

The neighbourhood process to this point has included a number of technical studies as well as one-on-one meetings and workshops with members of the council’s community planning team, the latest being a ‘Get to know your draft neighbourhood plan’ session held at the Gaelic Football Club, Willawong, in two time slots on 6 September. I went along to that workshop, as I am interested in the future of this area and its residents as it forms the green heart of my electorate. A number of residents have contacted me in relation to the draft plan that the Brisbane City Council has released for consideration. They have a number of concerns about aspects of the plan and I have met with a lot of those residents to discuss their concerns and to take up their concerns with both the Brisbane City Council and also relevant government departments. To date, I have met with officers from the Brisbane City Council planning team, officers from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection and officers from the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning. Can I put my thanks on record to these officers for their time and the knowledge and assistance they provided me in our discussions concerning residents’ concerns. As I mentioned before, I have met residents and I have listened to their concerns and I have voiced those concerns in the meetings that I have had with officers. On the other side of the coin I have also shared with residents information that I have received during these meetings. As I have said to all residents I have spoken to, the best way to get change to this draft plan is to have your say and the best way to have your say is to make a properly formed submission to the Brisbane City Council neighbourhood planning. I again urge residents to have their say on whatever aspect of the plan they have concerns about and to get their submissions into the council. On the other side of the ledger, I urge the council to consider residents’ views in relation to the future of their suburb. From conversations I have had with residents, there are a number of suggestions that I think would enhance the plan and achieve the outcomes that the council seeks. I will continue to advocate on behalf of residents in relation to the future of this area and work with them and the council to achieve a compromise that best fits the future of Pallara, Heathwood and Larapinta. Suicide Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (11.32 pm): Honourable members, in Queensland suicide is increasing in incidence and the rise is alarming. It is especially so because the previous Australian Bureau of Statistics statistics, which had previously suggested a minor downturn in incidence, were found to be incorrect. That was because there were financial cutbacks at the ABS, which led to the ABS using historical coronial inquest data as its primary collection vehicle for suspected or proven cause of death. Whereas we had believed that the average incidence had fallen to four per 1,000 across Australia, it may have actually risen in that time. We were just being misled by inadequate data. At World Suicide Prevention Day, which was held last week at the Albert Waterways Community Hall, I listened with interest to Ms Jacinta Hawgood, a lecturer at the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, known as AISRAP—formerly the National Centre of Excellence in Suicide Prevention—at the Mount Gravatt Campus of Griffith University. It was important to note that from 1990 to 2009, according to national statistics we had thought that the figures had gone down to 14 per 100,000 when, in fact, there was an overall rise—going up to 18 per 100,000. So there was this four per 100,000 gap. Suicides require a beyond reasonable doubt definition to be stated as probable cause of death. This is a difficult fact and, therefore, probable suicides may not be included in final statistics. According to the AISRAP, official statistics are affected by different data collection processes for several reasons. Comprehensive analyses are undertaken to identify significant statistically and remarkable discrepancies between ABS and QSR data. Five hundred and fifty deaths annually in Queensland is too many. Four out of five are males and the peak incidence group is 35 to 55 years of age. By inference from data collected and worldwide research, the most likely cause of the recent 2007 to 2011 increase in suicide is unemployment, financial difficulty and loss of economic hope. That mirrors overseas post-GFC data. It may not auger well for what is now occurring in Queensland. Unemployment is rising and it is occurring broadly across many industries. Also, with the Premier’s statement that the Public Service cuts are going to be fewer than 14,000 rather than 20,000, with a heavy emphasis on voluntary redundancy, the likely consequence is more lives saved. This is serendipitous and must not be ignored. A life lost as a suicide is not just a tragedy for that family but an economic loss to our very small nation. I put it to members that we cannot afford this. Suicide prevention must be approached with the same rigour as we do with reducing road trauma. The causes of suicide are many but, clearly, if economic factors are major ones, then let us try to mitigate these in all our communities. The government must set the example of what to do and what not to do. R U OK? Day is being held tomorrow. I ask all members to support it. If there is someone who is struggling to cope with everyday life, give them a call. (Time expired) 1908 Attendance 12 Sep 2012

Vietnam Veterans Day Mr YOUNG (Keppel—LNP) (11.35 pm): I had the pleasure of attending the memorial to mark Vietnam Veterans Day, which was held at Cockscomb Veterans Camp on Saturday, 18 August. Cockscomb Veterans Camp is located within my electorate of Cawarral. The camp was developed in July 1997 by a number of Vietnam veterans who came up with the plan to develop an area somewhere in the bush as a reasonably isolated camp. Cockscomb is open to all veterans and serving members of all defence forces and their families and to all emergency services. The Cockscomb Veterans Camp had over 300 people travelling from all over the country attending the memorial service, making it one of the biggest veteran days held at the site. The commemoration marked the 50th anniversary of Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War and the 46th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. The Battle of Long Tan saw the action of 108 Anzacs against a Viet Cong—North Vietnamese—force, estimated to be between 1,500 and 2,500. The battle was one of the heaviest conflicts of the Vietnam War as well as one of the few battles in the recorded history of the world to be won against such odds. There were 21 Australians wounded and 18 killed—17 from D Company and one from the 1st Armoured Personnel Carrier Squadron. The Viet Cong insurgents left 245 dead and many more wounded. In later years, it was found out that D Company had run into a reinforced regimental force waiting to attack Nui Dat. Although the Battle of Long Tan was not the largest battle the Anzac forces experienced in Vietnam, nor did it have the most troops or last the longest time, the stakes involved were the most critical to the Australian and New Zealand involvements and the results in proportion to the Anzac forces were the greatest. After the battle of Long Tan, the enemy never again sought to take on the task force base in Nui Dat. Long Tan was not distinguished in Australia and nor was it rendered icon status until the Vietnam veterans themselves chose the date, 18 August, as national Vietnam Veterans Day. The date was approved by the government and all Vietnam veterans now honour Long Tan Day as their day for remembering those who served, those who were wounded and those who died in the Vietnam battle. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.38 pm.

ATTENDANCE Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Byrne, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Cunningham, Davies, C. Davis, T. Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Douglas, Dowling, Driscoll, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Hopper, Johnson, Judge, Katter, Kaye, Kempton, King, Knuth, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Menkens, Millard, Miller, Minnikin, Molhoek, Mulherin, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Scott, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Simpson, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trad, Trout, Walker, Watts, Wellington, Woodforth, Young